8926
Post by: BladeWalker
RiTides wrote:
Re: Counts as, generally making something to counts as a FW model has less acceptance, for whatever reason (probably just keeping track of everything) than doing the reverse. The Mechanicon document linked to above prohibits it outright.
If it's WYSIWYG and made from majority GW kits I don't understand the restriction. That just makes FW seem more elitist to me. I'm just devils advocate here, I doubt I would ever cough up the cash for FW stuff other than the books. If the interest was truly to have fun and variety of armies then why not counts as? Does it offend the people that paid a premium for their models?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
BladeWalker wrote:So what about using your own converted models as counts-as FW units? Sure you can use FW models to count as some codex entries in events that don't allow FW but can I convert up my own models and use them in events that do? Just curious if it goes both ways in peoples minds...
IMO, you should be able to.
The problem with counts-as FW units is that far too often it's used as an excuse to "scratchbuild" an ugly proxy so you can save money, not to create an awesome conversion that best matches how you want the unit to look. So I think that's the reason why some people ban counts-as FW units, it's easier to just issue a blanket ban than to decide case-by-case whether it's a legitimate counts-as model or just a money-saving proxy.
(And yes, in theory the same issue exists with codex stuff, but the high price of FW models tends to create more proxying.)
MVBrandt wrote:Nevertheless, events that forbid the use of some or many codices actually happen quite routinely. What was your point?
My point is that allowing or not allowing FW is no different than allowing or not allowing the Tyranid codex. You have every right to do it since it's your event, but you shouldn't.
And I would agree in theory with your point about variety, except that "variety" right now really means "if you don't live in an area where FW is popular you never get to use your FW stuff". I'm glad that some people get to, but if those events are too far away for me to afford the travel costs the "variety" doesn't exactly help me. How it should really work, IMO:
Most events should follow the standard 40k rules for army construction (everything published by GW and intended for standard 40k, whether it's printed in a codex, FW book, WD, etc) and use mission types fairly similar to the standard book ones ( IOW, no "punish flyerspam" type mission). If you have a legal 40k army you should be able to show up and play without having to modify your list to account for house rules, though obviously you shouldn't expect to win if you haven't prepared a competitive army list.
A minority of events should do weird things like codex-only, or fluff-specific events like a Heresy-era tournament. For example, your side event idea is exactly how it should be done, it's available if it's something you're interested in but there is still a "normal" event to play in if you're not. Of course not everyone can run multiple simultaneous events, but as long as weird events are treated as a special thing then nobody should feel like they've been excluded from tournament gaming in general.
The problem is that right now the proportion of events is completely reversed, most events have house rules that limit the accessibility of tournament gaming, while standard events are few and far between for many people.
9594
Post by: RiTides
Quoting this onto this page since you didn't address it Peregrine.
As to your above comment- a TO not allowing the tyranid codec isn't the same as not allowing FW, for all the reasons MVBrandt very clearly tried to explain to you. You are pounding this point, but most folks disagree with you. Certainly, the language you are using about the clause being there for whiners is Not helping you appear any more reasonable.
RiTides wrote:muwhe wrote:I'm simply reinforcing only the position that each TO has the right to do as they please here, and people trying to pressure them NOT to use FW, or TO use FW, are the ones being unreasonable in the 10+ page debate.
Agreed!! 
Peregrine, you realize that in taking issue with the above, written by MVBrandt and agreed to by muwhe, you're disagreeing with 2 TOs of some of the biggest US GTs, Nova and Adepticon, right?
You have every right to do that, but these guys know what the heck they're talking about!
63000
Post by: Peregrine
RiTides wrote:As to your above comment- a TO not allowing the tyranid codec isn't the same as not allowing FW, for all the reasons MVBrandt very clearly tried to explain to you. You are pounding this point, but most folks disagree with you. Certainly, the language you are using about the clause being there for whiners is Not helping you appear any more reasonable.
And the people who actually write the rules for 40k disagree with you. Both the Tyranid codex and FW units are 100% legal and intended for use in standard 40k, and excluding either of them is nothing more than a house rule. Whether or not it's a popular house rule doesn't change this fact.
RiTides wrote:Peregrine, you realize that in taking issue with the above, written by MVBrandt and agreed to by muwhe, you're disagreeing with 2 TOs of some of the biggest US GTs, Nova and Adepticon, right?
You have every right to do that, but these guys know what the heck they're talking about!
Yes, I know who they are, and it doesn't change my disagreement one bit.
14076
Post by: MVBrandt
Our status as TO's doesn't make us genius arguers, or game designers. That said, intentionally ignoring the points I was trying to make actively makes you not a genius arguer. I'm happy to engage further if you want to address the differences that were delineated.
My primary point remains as this: TO's aren't right OR wrong in how they design their events, especially with regard to how they address the FW 40k stamp requiring you make sure your opponents are happy/familiar with using FW rules.
In light of that unique language being blatantly used in ONLY the rules for FW units, and not for any other units, it puts the onus on TO's to have to choose one way or another ... but does not make them right or wrong for doing so.
In regard to your Tyranid codex inclusive reply, again ... you're simply ignoring the points made and restating your own, which has the effect of rendering your arguments irrelevant.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
MVBrandt wrote:My primary point remains as this: TO's aren't right OR wrong in how they design their events, especially with regard to how they address the FW 40k stamp requiring you make sure your opponents are happy/familiar with using FW rules.
And I've already agreed with this: TOs aren't "right" or "wrong" in how they design individual events. What I object to is the overall trend where the default is different from the actual rules of the game and excludes legal armies and the players who own them. I would be content if most events allowed all legal armies according to the standard rules of 40k and a few special events had different rules. That's what genuine variety looks like, not the current situation where the only way to use your legal army is to spend a lot of money on traveling to distant events.
In light of that unique language being blatantly used in ONLY the rules for FW units, and not for any other units, it puts the onus on TO's to have to choose one way or another ... but does not make them right or wrong for doing so.
And my point is the most likely reason for this "unique language" isn't that GW is setting two separate policies, it's the historical fact that many people dislike FW rules and don't want to allow them, while the same kind of dislike for codex units isn't nearly as common. Even though they're wrong and unjustified in that dislike they still exist, so FW adds the disclaimer to say "be polite and make sure you aren't setting up a game with someone who hates FW before you show up with FW units".
In fact, you'll note that the statement says that you SHOULD make sure they're happy, not that you MUST make sure that they're happy. It's an optional thing that you should probably do if you want to avoid arguments, not a mandatory requirement for using the rules.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
I just want a 'battle brother' for my allied force and Ork Dredbash the FW codex is the only 'battle bro' orks get. I just hate the current 6th edition allied matrix (and Eldrad) soooooo much!
46182
Post by: MechBoyz
RiTides wrote:muwhe wrote:I'm simply reinforcing only the position that each TO has the right to do as they please here, and people trying to pressure them NOT to use FW, or TO use FW, are the ones being unreasonable in the 10+ page debate.
Agreed!! 
Peregrine, you realize that in taking issue with the above, written by MVBrandt and agreed to by muwhe, you're disagreeing with 2 TOs of some of the biggest US GTs, Nova and Adepticon, right?
You have every right to do that, but these guys know what the heck they're talking about!
And a Horus Heresy evening event at Nova sounds just plain awesome
Re: Counts as, generally making something to counts as a FW model has less acceptance, for whatever reason (probably just keeping track of everything) than doing the reverse. The Mechanicon document linked to above prohibits it outright.
Our "Counts As" rule could be misinterpreted. We would not deny a player from scratch building their own stuff following our modeling guidelines - instead it is used to keep shenanigans to a minimum. For example, a couple years ago a player checked in to see if he could use regular drop pods to represent the Lucius Pattern ones because he thought he would have a killer army. Our event is more focused on the models - it is a miniatures game after all. That would go against our definition of "Counts As". On the other hand, this year we have a player who has scratch built many of his own vehicles for IG to have a Soviet theme - and this is completely legal for us as it would instead be a "Conversion". If any of you have ever seen Tinners work you would never deny playing against his fantastic scratch built vehicles.
As for arguing a single sentence in a book about permission to use FW as the basis for exclusion from tournaments - IT DOES NOT SAY PERMISSION - IT SAYS HAPPY.
While we are talking about silly sentences, how about these two?
"With the points limit agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is make use of the army list in the relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either adapt the army list or use their own system if they wish"
Use their own system... Yes, there in the rulebook is says you can make your own rules. Would it be tournament legal? Usually not, but there will be exceptions. Take the fan made Chaos Dwarf list for WHFB - it was widely accepted by many TO's for their events.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I would say the CD list example is bad, considering that FW has its own CD book now(that just about all fantesy tournaments I've seen seem to allow)
63000
Post by: Peregrine
MechBoyz wrote:For example, a couple years ago a player checked in to see if he could use regular drop pods to represent the Lucius Pattern ones because he thought he would have a killer army.
I should point out that this would actually be illegal, since the Lucius-pattern pods are larger than the standard ones and this can have a major effect on gameplay.
(Which just proves my point about lazy proxies and why they should be excluded.)
46182
Post by: MechBoyz
Peregrine wrote:MechBoyz wrote:For example, a couple years ago a player checked in to see if he could use regular drop pods to represent the Lucius Pattern ones because he thought he would have a killer army.
I should point out that this would actually be illegal, since the Lucius-pattern pods are larger than the standard ones and this can have a major effect on gameplay.
(Which just proves my point about lazy proxies and why they should be excluded.)
While that would be true for the rules of our event - some events might actually allow that.
I think that many of us have agreed that each event may be different, we shared opinions on points, debated whether our opponents points are valid and either looked at another point of view or ignored our opponents valid points. All in all, I think this was a good thread and enjoyed joining it. Thanks everyone!
464
Post by: muwhe
For me it just highlights that there is no one way to play this game. People enjoy this hobby and events for different reasons. Which is a good thing.
466
Post by: skkipper
muwhe wrote:For me it just highlights that there is no one way to play this game. People enjoy this hobby and events for different reasons. Which is a good thing.
the question comes up is what will adepticon do with forge world this year?
limited in the team?
allowed in the championship?
464
Post by: muwhe
Skkipper,
Strictly speaking Forgeworld wise,
I suspect that the 40K TT rules will be very similar to last year if not the same. Personally, I am pretty happy with last years compromise as it allows people to bring and play with FW models without the extreme issues associated when a team spams multiple instances. The 40K TT by design already has a limited force organization chart so it fits in well as currently designed.
The question is whether those allowances carry over to the Championship format for 2013 and what other 40K event formats exist on the schedule.
Decisions are ultimately up to our 40K Team Tourney and 40K Championship staff and we still got a bit of time.
22413
Post by: mwnciboo
I know everyone says FW units are overpriced, but back in 5th edition Contemptor Dreadnoughts were ferocious yes it was nearly 200 pts, but it was Fleet, and did have some nifty special rules and could sport a "Kheres Pattern Assault Cannon".
The one with a Twin DCCW and a Missile Launcher combined with Fleet was especially nasty.
In 6th the change of Fleet makes it a bit more meh...
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Eh, they were good, better than some codex alternatives, but certainly not overpowered, certainly a 200pt dread with an extra attack and a missile launcher was nothing like a 140pt 5 ML long fang squad or a 130pt triple TL-lascannon vendetta or the like.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Well, it wasn't just an extra attack. It has AV13 and an Invulnerable save too. But 200 points is more then fair for that.
Compare to a Furioso Dreadnought. The Furioso has AV13 on the sides as well as the rear and has the option for 2 DCCWs or 2 Blood Talons. its far cheaper then the 200 point Contemptor.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Grey Templar wrote:Well, it wasn't just an extra attack. It has AV13 and an Invulnerable save too. But 200 points is more then fair for that.
Compare to a Furioso Dreadnought. The Furioso has AV13 on the sides as well as the rear and has the option for 2 DCCWs or 2 Blood Talons. its far cheaper then the 200 point Contemptor.
Even then, close combat dreads were generally a waste of points, I can't think of any that were commonly used in armies that commonly saw top tables. Close combat contemptors, while cool, were terrible for their cost in fifth. You could as easily get 5 th/ ss termies with 10 str 8 attacks and five 2+/3++ wounds. Given that sixth is even worse for assault, and you can't punch a flyer out of the sky the discussion seems academic. I've yet to see anything FW has released compare to the Vendetta, Palladin, Rune Priest, Vet squad, psyfledread, or any of the other spammed tourney winning units. If anything forge world is very conservative with it's rules and rulings while the games codex writers might as well be pulling point costs out of a hat. Automatically Appended Next Post: BladeWalker wrote: RiTides wrote:
Re: Counts as, generally making something to counts as a FW model has less acceptance, for whatever reason (probably just keeping track of everything) than doing the reverse. The Mechanicon document linked to above prohibits it outright.
If it's WYSIWYG and made from majority GW kits I don't understand the restriction. That just makes FW seem more elitist to me. I'm just devils advocate here, I doubt I would ever cough up the cash for FW stuff other than the books. If the interest was truly to have fun and variety of armies then why not counts as? Does it offend the people that paid a premium for their models?
What makes this argument even sillier is the lack of WYSYG enforcement in allies, something that is altogether more confusing and an order of magnitude more common.
9594
Post by: RiTides
Note that that's not my Wysiwyg argument- just what I've observed and also read in event guidelines... not necessarily my take.
4295
Post by: vhwolf
My take as an orginizer and player is that its ok to scratch build/convert to make forgeworld stuff but dont try to just use stock stuff. You have to make it WYSWIG and put some effort into rule of cool.
14076
Post by: MVBrandt
I'm going to support rule of cool here. I really don't care in ANY capacity - FW or otherwise - if you aren't using GW stock models or GW parts ... all our events are independent of GW, and they are by dramatic leaps and bounds are smallest sponsors (in fact, it's not even appropriate to call them sponsors anymore).
That said, it's generally not as OK anymore (especially with allies) to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them tactical marines. It's similarly probably not ok to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them heresy era Emperor's Children.
9594
Post by: RiTides
Makes sense to me
28365
Post by: OverwatchCNC
MVBrandt wrote:I'm going to support rule of cool here. I really don't care in ANY capacity - FW or otherwise - if you aren't using GW stock models or GW parts ... all our events are independent of GW, and they are by dramatic leaps and bounds are smallest sponsors (in fact, it's not even appropriate to call them sponsors anymore).
That said, it's generally not as OK anymore (especially with allies) to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them tactical marines. It's similarly probably not ok to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them heresy era Emperor's Children.
Agreed. The allies system has forced our local RTs to tighten up the counts as policy.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
OverwatchCNC wrote:MVBrandt wrote:I'm going to support rule of cool here. I really don't care in ANY capacity - FW or otherwise - if you aren't using GW stock models or GW parts ... all our events are independent of GW, and they are by dramatic leaps and bounds are smallest sponsors (in fact, it's not even appropriate to call them sponsors anymore).
That said, it's generally not as OK anymore (especially with allies) to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them tactical marines. It's similarly probably not ok to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them heresy era Emperor's Children.
Agreed. The allies system has forced our local RTs to tighten up the counts as policy.
They're gonna sell a lot more space wolves if every marine codex can't pretend to be them anymore!
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
Allowing conversions for FW starts off as must having to look cool but it opens the door for cardboard cutouts eventually in my opinion and there are people who will gladly do so. I'll never forget a local tournament where the TO's brother brought a stuffed bunny rabbit to proxy a Tyranid Hierodule. It was absurd.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Dozer Blades wrote:Allowing conversions for FW starts off as must having to look cool but it opens the door for cardboard cutouts eventually in my opinion and there are people who will gladly do so. I'll never forget a local tournament where the TO's brother brought a stuffed bunny rabbit to proxy a Tyranid Hierodule. It was absurd.
The key word is "cool"
Cardboard cutouts and stuffed bunnys are not cool.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
Yes I agree but allowing non FW models is the first step down the wrong road in my opinion... Once that becomes excepted then people will demand the standards be lowered... "I have a very busy work schedule and don't have the spare time." blah blah blah.
4295
Post by: vhwolf
It only open the door if the players let it. As a player you should not allow the standards to drop. You don't have to play someone who would do this and you don't have to go to an event that would allow the low standards.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
vhwolf wrote:It only open the door if the players let it. As a player you should not allow the standards to drop. You don't have to play someone who would do this and you don't have to go to an event that would allow the low standards.
I fail to see the difference between counts as forge world models and converted or fully custom 40k models from places like microartstudio. It seems to me like there are double standards going on.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
ShumaGorath wrote:I fail to see the difference between counts as forge world models and converted or fully custom 40k models from places like microartstudio. It seems to me like there are double standards going on.
I think the "double standard" is just the fact that when most people ask about using converted/counts-as FW models what they're really saying is " FW is too expensive, can I bring this cheap proxy instead?", not "can I use the FW rules for my awesome scratchbuilt model that looks better than anything GW makes". I suspect "rule of cool" takes priority and most of the people banning counts-as FW stuff would allow a legitimate scratchbuilt/converted model if you asked for a special exception to the rule.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
First it was the premise that FW units shouid be allowed at big events, now some people want to use proxies and conversions. What's next?
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Peregrine wrote: ShumaGorath wrote:I fail to see the difference between counts as forge world models and converted or fully custom 40k models from places like microartstudio. It seems to me like there are double standards going on. I think the "double standard" is just the fact that when most people ask about using converted/counts-as FW models what they're really saying is " FW is too expensive, can I bring this cheap proxy instead?", not "can I use the FW rules for my awesome scratchbuilt model that looks better than anything GW makes". I suspect "rule of cool" takes priority and most of the people banning counts-as FW stuff would allow a legitimate scratchbuilt/converted model if you asked for a special exception to the rule. I'm going to rephrase that one for you. I think the "double standard" is just the fact that when most people ask about using converted/counts-as allies models what they're really saying is "GW is too expensive, can I bring this model I already own instead?", not "can I use the allies rules for my awesome heresy era imperial army that looks better than anything GW makes". I suspect "rule of cool" takes priority and most of the people banning counts-as allies stuff would allow a legitimate scratchbuilt/converted model if you asked for a special exception to the rule. You can try to legitimize it, but this is still a double standard. What you are trying to do is force decorum through banning. Most major tournaments with soft scores already do this anyway with different types of comp scoring. If you're not going to enforce wysywig with codex hopping marine forces (which major tournies don't seem to do very stringently) than I fail to see how this is any worse for the hobby. There are legitimate concerns with forge world entries in major tournies (mostly due to rules conflicts and the lack of FAQs or community vetting), but the idea that allowing it will just bring in a parade of bad counts as models ignores the fact that you already have that, and have for years.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
This is why its a good thing that a rule allowing scratch builds and proxies is left in the subjective hands of the TO. Who hopefully has decent rule of cool standards.
If they don't, feel free to no longer go to that tournament.
From my experience, most TOs will enforce an acceptable line in the sand.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Except I'd agree with your rephrase as well. There's a big counts-as problem with allies when you're talking about marine armies, and if "use the models I already own" means "some of these identical models are SW, some are BA" then no, you shouldn't be allowed to do it. Just like you shouldn't be able to proxy IG troops and a Valkyrie as Necron flyers because Necron flyerspam is awesome and you don't want to have to buy actual Necron flyers.
The only real difference here is that the cheap proxy problem seems to be less frequent with GW stuff so there's less need for a blanket ban to deal with it.
If you're not going to enforce wysywig with codex hopping marine forces (which major tournies don't seem to do very stringently) than I fail to see how this is any worse for the hobby.
At least the marine forces can be called a custom chapter and are WYSIWYG in equipment. After all, GW encourages you to paint your models however you like, so aesthetic things shouldn't interfere with WYSIWYG. The FW proxy problem, on the other hand, seems to consist more of stuff like using regular drop pods as dread pods which is NOT WYSIWYG and, in fact, is a case of modeling for advantage by using a smaller model which is less likely to mishap on arrival.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Dozer Blades wrote:First it was the premise that FW units shouid be allowed at big events, now some people want to use proxies and conversions. What's next?
No one's said anything about proxies, the only thing people have been pointing out is that there's a double standard pertaining conversions of "normal" units and FW units.
22413
Post by: mwnciboo
Just to broaden this abit, some Companies are following GW. Battlefront's Flames of War tournaments are now BF only models, I think this is because of the amount of 15mm WWII stuff out there. I think it's even harder to enforce, than say something where you own all the IP.
The FW stuff is just another Arm of GW, it's in the Same factory and use the same IP. It's a symbiotic relationship, FW pay nice licenses to GW and GW stuff White Dwarf with FW stuff.
The FW in tournaments argument is kind of moot, there are tournaments that do allow it, and tournaments that don't. Simple. I don't see why you need a case against FW at a tournament, it's seems kind of a rebel without of cause argument.
9594
Post by: RiTides
MVBrandt wrote:I'm going to support rule of cool here. I really don't care in ANY capacity - FW or otherwise - if you aren't using GW stock models or GW parts ... all our events are independent of GW, and they are by dramatic leaps and bounds are smallest sponsors (in fact, it's not even appropriate to call them sponsors anymore).
That said, it's generally not as OK anymore (especially with allies) to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them tactical marines. It's similarly probably not ok to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them heresy era Emperor's Children.
This is the key. FW or not!
Rule of Cool takes precedence.
14076
Post by: MVBrandt
Easy, easy. Rule of Cool generally requires TO preapproval. You don't get to show up to a tourney with cardboard cutouts, any more than with stock, poorly painted mm/fist dreads counting as contemptors.
9594
Post by: RiTides
Ninja'ed you by 2 seconds
But that's a fantastic point that I forgot about... for both Adepticon and Nova this year, I emailed ahead of time to get approval for my counts-as models. I believe this is a requirement for most major tournaments.
Solves the cardboard box problem, as if they show up with it, it says right in the packet that approval for counts-as models is required ahead of time.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
AlmightyWalrus wrote:No one's said anything about proxies, the only thing people have been pointing out is that there's a double standard pertaining conversions of "normal" units and FW units.
Except people have said something about proxies. Most of the time when people are asking about using "counts-as" models with FW rules what they're really saying is " FW is too expensive, can I use a minimal-effort proxy and save money?".
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Peregrine wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:No one's said anything about proxies, the only thing people have been pointing out is that there's a double standard pertaining conversions of "normal" units and FW units. Except people have said something about proxies. Most of the time when people are asking about using "counts-as" models with FW rules what they're really saying is " FW is too expensive, can I use a minimal-effort proxy and save money?". That is what people say with converted or proxied allies as well. Hell, that's what people say with sternguard 100% of the time (have they ever sold any of those?). Why is it unacceptable that my sternguard are from a tac marine box, but that forgeworld siege dread can't be taken from an ironclad box? Why can I make a battlewagon out of a land raider, but not any of the similarly scaled forge world ork machines?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
ShumaGorath wrote:That is what people say with converted or proxied allies as well. Hell, that's what people say with sternguard 100% of the time (have they ever sold any of those?). Why is it unacceptable that my sternguard are from a tac marine box, but that forgeworld siege dread can't be taken from an ironclad box? Why can I make a battlewagon out of a land raider, but not any of the similarly scaled forge world ork machines?
Because, fair or not, the perception is that the "cheap proxy" problem is more common with FW rules than GW rules. The rare case of someone using cheap proxies instead of legitimate counts-as models for a standard codex unit can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis by the TO, while cheap proxies for FW units would be common enough that it's easier to just issue a blanket ban and make a special exception if someone comes up with something really cool.
Your sternguard example really isn't a good one. They can be perfectly WYSIWYG in equipment from the tactical squad box since the only difference between sternguard and tactical marines is aesthetic (and even if you argue that the two have to look different on the table it can be done entirely with painting). A "siege dread" made from a minimally-converted ironclad would NOT be WYSIWYG since the weapons would be different. A dread pod made from a minimally converted standard pod would NOT be WYSIWYG because it would be the wrong size.
And, as has been pointed out, some TOs just ban counts-as stuff entirely without special permission, in which case there's no double standard at all.
4295
Post by: vhwolf
As long as they have some conversion work done then all of your examples should be ok to use. It's not ok however to plop down a land raider and say it is a battlefortress.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
The key is conversions with effort.
Just using a landraider for a battlewagon/battlefortress. Not cool.
using a landraider with tons of orky bits and extra dakka as a battlewagon/battlefortress. Very cool
using a toy vehicle thats been all orkified to be a battlewagon/battlefortress. Very cool too.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Peregrine wrote: ShumaGorath wrote:That is what people say with converted or proxied allies as well. Hell, that's what people say with sternguard 100% of the time (have they ever sold any of those?). Why is it unacceptable that my sternguard are from a tac marine box, but that forgeworld siege dread can't be taken from an ironclad box? Why can I make a battlewagon out of a land raider, but not any of the similarly scaled forge world ork machines? Because, fair or not, the perception is that the "cheap proxy" problem is more common with FW rules than GW rules. The rare case of someone using cheap proxies instead of legitimate counts-as models for a standard codex unit can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis by the TO, while cheap proxies for FW units would be common enough that it's easier to just issue a blanket ban and make a special exception if someone comes up with something really cool. Your sternguard example really isn't a good one. They can be perfectly WYSIWYG in equipment from the tactical squad box since the only difference between sternguard and tactical marines is aesthetic (and even if you argue that the two have to look different on the table it can be done entirely with painting). A "siege dread" made from a minimally-converted ironclad would NOT be WYSIWYG since the weapons would be different. A dread pod made from a minimally converted standard pod would NOT be WYSIWYG because it would be the wrong size. And, as has been pointed out, some TOs just ban counts-as stuff entirely without special permission, in which case there's no double standard at all. I think the logical part of the converted ironclad would be a weapon conversion, I'm not sure what else they're altering there. As for banning counts-as, that seems over harsh and would drive quite a few people from the tournament space during a time where the games ruleset and general ideology is moving away from ideal tournament play in the first place. What I'm driving at here is that this is a double standard. Not all double standards are bad, exceptions often exist for a reason, but it should be treated plainly and with a minimum of hyperbole. Presuming a future where forge world proxies occur at a high percentage than regular ones without support seems hyperbolic. There are easily identifiable trends that would lead to that occurring now (there is no reason to put money and effort into forge world if the units are commonly banned, thus creating a higher total percentage of "counts as"), but adding legitimacy to forge world in the tournament space would logically have the opposite effect as it would incentivise players to use those resources to ensure compliance within the minimum levels of decorum. The proxy issue with forge world unit entries isn't nearly as big as the little talked about issues of zero good FAQs and a near total lack of supporting precedent for how forces or army wide rules mesh with one another. A good 150% of forge world rules are specific to new space marine chapters. These are't handled in a fashion that is consistent or commonly updated and a significant number of identifiable loopholes exist.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
ShumaGorath wrote:As for banning counts-as, that seems over harsh and would drive quite a few people from the tournament space during a time where the games ruleset and general ideology is moving away from ideal tournament play in the first place.
It's not a complete ban, just, as a couple TOs just posted, requiring that all counts-as stuff be approved specifically by the TO. If you have a legitimate counts-as model you're fine. If you have a cheap proxy you're not invited.
Presuming a future where forge world proxies occur at a high percentage than regular ones without support seems hyperbolic. There are easily identifiable trends that would lead to that occurring now (there is no reason to put money and effort into forge world if the units are commonly banned, thus creating a higher total percentage of "counts as"), but adding legitimacy to forge world in the tournament space would logically have the opposite effect as it would incentivise players to use those resources to ensure compliance within the minimum levels of decorum.
So maybe in this hypothetical future a ban on counts-as units wouldn't be required. But right now there's a legitimate perception that most of the people asking to use counts-as FW units are doing it for the sole purpose of bringing a cheap proxy because they don't want to buy the real model. Therefore the reasonable solution is to allow the rules but require the actual model (or specific permission from the TO to use a counts-as model), and leave it that way until the cheap proxy problem becomes no more common than with GW units.
The proxy issue with forge world unit entries isn't nearly as big as the little talked about issues of zero good FAQs and a near total lack of supporting precedent for how forces or army wide rules mesh with one another. A good 150% of forge world rules are specific to new space marine chapters. These are't handled in a fashion that is consistent or commonly updated and a significant number of identifiable loopholes exist.
Have you ever looked at the YMDC forum? You know, the place where they point out all the countless loopholes and broken rules in the core rulebook and every codex? Or, on the subject of FAQs, you do realize we're talking about the GW that left broken 4th edition rules in the Tau codex for years before they finally released an FAQ that did anything about it. If you're able to deal with all of that and still have a properly functioning tournament then adding FW stuff isn't going to change anything.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
So maybe in this hypothetical future a ban on counts-as units wouldn't be required. But right now there's a legitimate perception that most of the people asking to use counts-as FW units are doing it for the sole purpose of bringing a cheap proxy because they don't want to buy the real model. Therefore the reasonable solution is to allow the rules but require the actual model (or specific permission from the TO to use a counts-as model), and leave it that way until the cheap proxy problem becomes no more common than with GW units.
That seems reasonable.
Have you ever looked at the YMDC forum? You know, the place where they point out all the countless loopholes and broken rules in the core rulebook and every codex? Or, on the subject of FAQs, you do realize we're talking about the GW that left broken 4th edition rules in the Tau codex for years before they finally released an FAQ that did anything about it. If you're able to deal with all of that and still have a properly functioning tournament then adding FW stuff isn't going to change anything.
Well, anything except doubling the size of the INAT. It won't bring anything new to the table, sure, but it'll greatly increase the strain on the current systems. Rules interaction issues grow on an exponential scale as the numbers of rules that must cross reference grow. Increases aren't linear, and adding forge world (a notoriously lose system for things like force org or common terms) would hugely increase the size of that box.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
ShumaGorath wrote:Well, anything except doubling the size of the INAT. It won't bring anything new to the table, sure, but it'll greatly increase the strain on the current systems. Rules interaction issues grow on an exponential scale as the numbers of rules that must cross reference grow. Increases aren't linear, and adding forge world (a notoriously lose system for things like force org or common terms) would hugely increase the size of that box.
The problem with this argument is that you could also reduce complexity and rule debates by banning troublesome codex units, or even entire codices. It might be taking it to an extreme, but I bet the FAQ list would be a lot shorter if the only legal army was C: SM. So what makes the codex-only level of problems acceptable? It doesn't seem like a desirable state of things, so all I can really see is a personal preference for saying "enough is enough" at that point rather than at some other equally reasonable point.
On the other hand, my position is consistent: all of GW's rules are equally bad at this, so allow everything GW publishes for standard 40k. In the absence of a clear place to draw the line on adding more rule debates, you just leave it at GW's own policy.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Peregrine wrote: ShumaGorath wrote:Well, anything except doubling the size of the INAT. It won't bring anything new to the table, sure, but it'll greatly increase the strain on the current systems. Rules interaction issues grow on an exponential scale as the numbers of rules that must cross reference grow. Increases aren't linear, and adding forge world (a notoriously lose system for things like force org or common terms) would hugely increase the size of that box.
The problem with this argument is that you could also reduce complexity and rule debates by banning troublesome codex units, or even entire codices. It might be taking it to an extreme, but I bet the FAQ list would be a lot shorter if the only legal army was C: SM. So what makes the codex-only level of problems acceptable? It doesn't seem like a desirable state of things, so all I can really see is a personal preference for saying "enough is enough" at that point rather than at some other equally reasonable point.
On the other hand, my position is consistent: all of GW's rules are equally bad at this, so allow everything GW publishes for standard 40k. In the absence of a clear place to draw the line on adding more rule debates, you just leave it at GW's own policy.
The belief that all of GWs rules are equally bad implies a lack of familiarity with forge world books and how entire supplemental armies exist without entry into force organization charts and with unit entries existing outside of unit structures. Not everything is equal here, the presumption that it all is smacks of laziness.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
ShumaGorath wrote:The belief that all of GWs rules are equally bad implies a lack of familiarity with forge world books and how entire supplemental armies exist without entry into force organization charts and with unit entries existing outside of unit structures. Not everything is equal here, the presumption that it all is smacks of laziness.
Err, what armies/units exist outside of the FOC? The only ones I can think of are the Apocalypse-only units, and that's a deliberate choice to keep them out of normal 40k.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Yeah, every FW unit intended for normal play says exactly what armies can take it and in what FoC slot.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, every FW unit intended for normal play says exactly what armies can take it and in what FoC slot.
Except the chaos contemptor when it released, alongside a half dozen other units from that same book (these were all marked "for 40k"). Unit entries in the badaab books are similarly missing contextual entries at times while the chapter traits presented aren't updated for sixth. There are probably dozens of close combat weapons without rulings for AP as well, alongside many psychic characters and psychic powers without FAQing into sixth. There are vehicles sans hull points, flying units that should or shouldn't be flying, RAW entries that override the primary rulebook and reassert fifth (or fourth) edition rules on how to perform assaults, use templates, activate psychic powers, take leadership tests, etc. Without having the book in front of me I can't really say, but I bet I could find a good two dozen things needing faqs in the tyrants legion army section of the badaab war books alone.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Have you checked out the FW FAQ sheet they released explicitly because of 6th edition?
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Grey Templar wrote:Have you checked out the FW FAQ sheet they released explicitly because of 6th edition? I saw portions of it, I was under the impression that it covered the IA apocalypse books and later. :Edit: I am now looking at these and they aren't particularly comprehensive.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
ShumaGorath wrote:Except the chaos contemptor when it released, alongside a half dozen other units from that same book (these were all marked "for 40k").
Ok, but those were a pretty obvious case of typos, not a deliberate decision to have units that exist outside the FOC. And what else was there besides the Contemptor?
Unit entries in the badaab books are similarly missing contextual entries at times
Which units would those be? IIRC the only units that got rules in those books were the HQ characters (all marked as HQ options for a marine army) and units that were part of the special army lists at the end (all given in the appropriate FOC slot of the army list).
while the chapter traits presented aren't updated for sixth.
What update do you need? I just looked at all the chapter tactics rules in both books and all of them work just fine. Some of the USRs might do different things, but that's not a rule conflict.
(Ok, technically there was one that gave Infiltrators and not Infiltrate, but if you're going to nitpick that difference then 40k is not the game for you.)
There are probably dozens of close combat weapons without rulings for AP
What rulings do you need? There's a default case for close combat weapons ( STR: user, AP -). If it's a power weapon it follows the rules for unusual power weapons ( STR: user, AP 3). There might be some cases were you might want a different AP value (just like we can argue all day that GW made the wrong call on various codex power weapons being axe/sword/etc) but there aren't any that actually cause a rule debate.
as well, alongside many psychic characters and psychic powers without FAQing into sixth.
What FAQ do you need? If it doesn't explicitly say "may trade for X book powers from Y disciplines" then you just have a default mastery level 1 psyker with specific powers that can't be exchanged. You might want to be able to take book powers, but it isn't a rule problem if you can't (just like IG psyker squads can't take book powers).
There are vehicles sans hull points, flying units that should or shouldn't be flying,
This was fixed immediately after 6th was released. Every vehicle has hull points and unit type listed, and if it doesn't it will be added if you tell them about it.
(And, AFAIK, if anything has been missed, it's one of those random fluff-based units that nobody will ever use.)
RAW entries that override the primary rulebook and reassert fifth (or fourth) edition rules on how to perform assaults, use templates, activate psychic powers, take leadership tests, etc. Without having the book in front of me I can't really say, but I bet I could find a good two dozen things needing faqs in the tyrants legion army section of the badaab war books alone.
Well, if you don't want to find it then we can't really discuss it. But in any case FW have said that they're working on 6th edition updates for that army list, so it's not a long-term problem. Just like how it didn't stop people from running tournaments when GW published 6th and failed miserably at immediately covering every problem with the updates.
26458
Post by: hyv3mynd
TO's need to be consistent in maintaining "rule of cool" standards with standard codex conversions and "counts-as" before expanding to FW units.
It was on this very site a year or two ago that I read a batrep with a leafblower-esque army that had hydras with plastic soda straws for autocannons. I believe it was even on the top table and may have placed. I've also been to GT's that advertize "3 color minimum and based models" yet with one pass through the hall can fins several armies with unpainted or unfinished models.
Standard need to be enforced. Playing with all your toys is not the same as playing with unpainted, MacGyver'ed middle school art projects.
FW has not been allowed in any of the tournaments in my region as long as I've been playing. If you plug in our zip code into the GW store finder (14617), the closest GW store is 89 miles away and in another country (Canada). None of our independent retailers offer a selection of FW models or books. Yes, we're in the age of technology and internet shopping, but if a hobbyist has $100 burning a hole in their pocket in our area, it's almost a guarantee they will drive a few minutes to the closest shop and get the hot new model they can assemble and use right away. Not order, wait for shipping, look for someone that will let them use it, and petition for a local event to allow them. Independent retailers locally have no incentive to allow FW. It creates excitement about a product they don't offer and can detract sales from the items they do offer.
Like I said before, my stance is this:
We're playing a game and participating in a hobby that is based on fluff that's been written, re-written, and expanded over decades. Despite that, how many instances in the fluff will you find GK battling GK, or SW and IG fighting IG and SW? In the grim dark of the distant future there is only war, and it's almost always between good guys and bad guys with a few exceptions. The fact that tournaments are against the nature of the game and encourage good guys to battle other good guys further widens the gap between fluff and reality.
GW may not release codices balanced against each other, but at least they all have multiple options from each force org slot and players can create similar armies. FW does not release units equally or even closely equal between the good guys (imperial loyalists) and bad guys (xenos). Take the 30:5 ratio from marines:tyranids from earlier in the thread. "But GW favors marines anyways" doesn't fly with me. Justifying further imbalance by pointing out existing imbalance is a poor stance.
"Just let people play with all their toys" is fine and dandy. But when you incorporate an expansion line such as FW who provide dozens of toys for one guy and none for another leads to some pretty obvious effects. The guys who play armies that FW neglects will become discouraged and may not attend FW-friendly events. By attempting to make an event more inclusive, you will be excluding others. There's another portion who will flock to the imperial armies who have all the fun FW toys and xenos representation will further diminish.
When people stop playing the "bad guys", events will feature "good guys" vs "good guys" all day long. I know it happens now to a degree, but the gap will widen. GW will further distance themselves from the tournament scene as the games taking place will not be representative of their story line or vision of the grim dark future.
GW's ToS event was a great attempt to get back to their vision. Rewarding the best player of each codex encouraged people to venture away from their standard tournament armies and bring diversity back.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
hyv3mynd wrote:
GW may not release codices balanced against each other, but at least they all have multiple options from each force org slot and players can create similar armies. FW does not release units equally or even closely equal between the good guys (imperial loyalists) and bad guys (xenos). Take the 30:5 ratio from marines:tyranids from earlier in the thread. "But GW favors marines anyways" doesn't fly with me. Justifying further imbalance by pointing out existing imbalance is a poor stance.
Just checked FW:s webpage. I count 23 completely new SM units (not counting both Veteran Sergeant Culln and Commander Culln). Of these, 12 are variations of Codex units such as Land Raider variants, Predator variants and Rhino variants. As such, the number of units that you can't just treat like a Land Raider/Predator/Rhino etc. with some minor difference is just 11. Still more than twice the number of Nid units, but nowhere near a 5:1 ratio. Meanwhile, Grey Knights only get a measly 2 units, but I don't see anyone complaining about the Xenos getting 150% more new units than the Grey Knights.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Just checked FW:s webpage. I count 23 completely new SM units (not counting both Veteran Sergeant Culln and Commander Culln). Of these, 12 are variations of Codex units such as Land Raider variants, Predator variants and Rhino variants. As such, the number of units that you can't just treat like a Land Raider/Predator/Rhino etc. with some minor difference is just 11. Still more than twice the number of Nid units, but nowhere near a 5:1 ratio. Meanwhile, Grey Knights only get a measly 2 units, but I don't see anyone complaining about the Xenos getting 150% more new units than the Grey Knights.
Plus, as has been mentioned already, many of the Imperial units are redundant ones, either because they're fluff-focused stuff like powerlifter Sentinels (a Sentinel with no gun used for moving cargo), or because the army already has so many top-tier options that the FW one doesn't make much of an impact. The xenos units, on the other hand, tend to be fewer in number but a higher proportion of them are things you'll actually want to use. So while, for example, IG get a couple units that might make it into a tournament list Tau get several new fast attack options, interesting new troops choices, and their only AA unit. In the end allowing FW gives a much larger benefit to the Tau player than to the IG player.
hyv3mynd wrote:Standard need to be enforced. Playing with all your toys is not the same as playing with unpainted, MacGyver'ed middle school art projects.
Sure. I agree entirely with that, and I really wish that tournaments would strictly enforce painting and scratchbuilding rules to ban that garbage.
Yes, we're in the age of technology and internet shopping, but if a hobbyist has $100 burning a hole in their pocket in our area, it's almost a guarantee they will drive a few minutes to the closest shop and get the hot new model they can assemble and use right away.
So tournament rules should be based on impatient players who can't stop impulse buying? Should we also ban stuff like the character models you can only get from GW online and not at your FLGS?
The whole point about "availability" was that supposedly FW units are hard to get, not that people decide not to buy them. And of course it's a terrible argument to make in 2012 when online shopping is trivially easy.
62238
Post by: MarkyMark
In regards to the count as units, I want to use FW hyperios defence launchers in a up coming tourny (quite a important one as it has teams from the england and wales ETC boys) and I didnt want to pay 21GBP per model for each launcher, so I bought and converted two count as cyclone missile launchers, would this be ok by some of your standards? or would this be looked at as being too cheap to buy FW
4295
Post by: vhwolf
I would have to see what you built but if they are about as big as whirlwind missile launchers they would probably be ok.
62238
Post by: MarkyMark
Dont think they are they are up to the shouders of a tac marine
Ala
4295
Post by: vhwolf
Personally I think they are quite a bit smaller than they should be. I would probably not allow it for that reason.
466
Post by: skkipper
yeah they are a bit small. they should be on a weapons team size base.
411
Post by: whitedragon
Would be alot easier to just use a Whirlwind Turret.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
And that turret needs to be on a large gun platform base which is at least 60mm around and raises the gun up. And the turret needs to be twice as wide as the real model is almost 2.5-3" across.
These fail rule of cool and MFA to me.
62238
Post by: MarkyMark
So buying three whirlwind turrets is a cheap option? ha, they are only a quick fix as I joined the tourny as a last minute entry to cover someone who couldnt make it (its a team tourny, i entered it last week and it is this weekend!).
weapons team base? you mean guard heavy weapons, what size are they? 60mm?
7942
Post by: nkelsch
MarkyMark wrote:So buying three whirlwind turrets is a cheap option? ha, they are only a quick fix as I joined the tourny as a last minute entry to cover someone who couldnt make it (its a team tourny, i entered it last week and it is this weekend!).
weapons team base? you mean guard heavy weapons, what size are they? 60mm?
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space-Marine-Support/SPACE-MARINE-AIR-DEFENCE-LAUNCHER.html
You can see it is almost the width of a rhino, and sits on a quad-pod at least 60mm wide.
Having an appropriate profile for determining cover and LOS and appropriate base size are minimal requirements for acceptable conversions or 'counts as' IMHO.
62238
Post by: MarkyMark
Maybe I should have got two for each launcher really,
Food for thought if I decide to use them again
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
How you are judging the size of that model in the infinite white limbo it's photographed in is beyond me.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
ShumaGorath wrote:
How you are judging the size of that model in the infinite white limbo it's photographed in is beyond me.
He's probably guessing that the mount is compatable with a Razorback turret, which would make it about the width of a Rhino chassis.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Grey Templar wrote: ShumaGorath wrote:
How you are judging the size of that model in the infinite white limbo it's photographed in is beyond me.
He's probably guessing that the mount is compatable with a Razorback turret, which would make it about the width of a Rhino chassis.
And I have seen the model in real life, and that same part is sold 4 different ways on the FW webstore, one of which is mounted on a Rhino which shows the large size of it.
62238
Post by: MarkyMark
Annoyingly I havent seen it in person nor could I find a picture of it next to a model for comparsion even on google images when I first bought it. Also the models I bought seemed bigger....
Have no choice but to use them this weekend as my army list has been sent in and on their website but yes I totally agree size is a big factor, everything else in my army is WYSIWYG and 3 colour min and based, even though I have only been collecting for 3 weeks, imo that is also a important factor. Looks like I will have to buy another 3 to doube them up or just buy the FW ones to go with my assault ram.
Sorry I have taken this thread a little off topic but it has helped me
464
Post by: muwhe
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ADyso9fY-QI/S-CQUTX_sjI/AAAAAAAABlw/6NEqRdLXDdQ/s1600/SDC13786.JPG
Here is a shot of the Hyperios turret next to a Chimera. The base is the same as the one supplied with the Sabre Platform.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
MarkyMark wrote:Annoyingly I havent seen it in person nor could I find a picture of it next to a model for comparsion even on google images when I first bought it. Also the models I bought seemed bigger.... Have no choice but to use them this weekend as my army list has been sent in and on their website but yes I totally agree size is a big factor, everything else in my army is WYSIWYG and 3 colour min and based, even though I have only been collecting for 3 weeks, imo that is also a important factor. Looks like I will have to buy another 3 to doube them up or just buy the FW ones to go with my assault ram. Sorry I have taken this thread a little off topic but it has helped me  Just boost them up on their bases a bit so that they can't hide behind a rhino. That should silence most opposition to it as a model. GW really needs to standardize the size of it's models, so much of the games lose rules for LOS and cover can be exploited casually or accidentally.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
nkelsch wrote: Grey Templar wrote: ShumaGorath wrote:
How you are judging the size of that model in the infinite white limbo it's photographed in is beyond me.
He's probably guessing that the mount is compatable with a Razorback turret, which would make it about the width of a Rhino chassis.
And I have seen the model in real life, and that same part is sold 4 different ways on the FW webstore, one of which is mounted on a Rhino which shows the large size of it.
In the link you posted, you cannot see what I bolded.
It would've been better to link http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Images/Product/AlternativeFW/xlarge/Whirlhyp2.jpg instead - much more clear.
4295
Post by: vhwolf
MarkyMark wrote:Annoyingly I havent seen it in person nor could I find a picture of it next to a model for comparsion even on google images when I first bought it. Also the models I bought seemed bigger....
Have no choice but to use them this weekend as my army list has been sent in and on their website but yes I totally agree size is a big factor, everything else in my army is WYSIWYG and 3 colour min and based, even though I have only been collecting for 3 weeks, imo that is also a important factor. Looks like I will have to buy another 3 to doube them up or just buy the FW ones to go with my assault ram.
Sorry I have taken this thread a little off topic but it has helped me 
I don't think you took it off topic I think asking an opinion and getting the responses is exactly what we need to do sometimes.
26742
Post by: Dugg
I am for ForgeWorld in Tournaments. They are part of the rules now and restricting them for the LAYMAN is not a valid reason. Reasonable men adapt to the world around them; unreasonable men make the world adapt to them. The World of 40k has changed and we must adapt to all of it.
To restrict FW on the basis of unfamiliarity screams “CHANGE IS BAD”. 6th Ed is a big change and FW units are part of the game now and if you come up against a FW unit you haven’t played before you simply read the rules on that unit, which your opponent is required to have and you adapt. This is not a difficult thing to do for a competent General. I still have to explain and show rules from my normal Codex to my opponents from time to time at Tournaments and I am running Orks.
I read through your posts and understand the points you are making and I have to disagree with you OverwatchCNC on this. Furthermore, I hope Frontline and other Major GTs keep allowing us to play with all available units allowed through the new GW rules.
6th Ed is a different game. We have to adapt to all of it and not jump to a negative outlook of restricting parts of it.
9594
Post by: RiTides
Dugg wrote:6th Ed is a different game. We have to adapt to all of it and not jump to a negative outlook of restricting parts of it.
The change from 5th ed to 6th ed ≠the change from allowing FW to disallowing it (or vice versa). I think that was actually the reason for the OP's post. For some reason, people wanted to link the edition change to allowing/disallowing FW. They are separate issues, imo.
62238
Post by: MarkyMark
The tourny I used the hyperios at of course allowed FW rules, there was a lot, and I mean a lot of hyperios launchers there, I only took 3 but some people took 12, I can understand both sides of the story, it is a mean weapon against flyers and deep strikers, against demons it is over powered against flyers it is a good deterent.
On the warhammer forum there is quite a bit of moaning about these rules, a few people are asking for FW rules to be restricted so they cant be spammed, this was suggested by a necron player with 6 flyers, well imo if you are going to spam flyers, dont be suprised when your opponent spams AA units.
I have no problem with FW being used at tournies but it seems a few of the more competitive players are the ones moaning about them after this weekends tourny, most of these competitive players spammed either transports (i,e 5 GK razorbacks 5 chimerias with 3 'detta's, the two necron players with 3 nightsycthe 3 doom sycthe and a demon player with 3 lots of 9 flamers) from what I have seen spam begets spam, no matter if its codex or FW
4295
Post by: vhwolf
MarkyMark wrote:T from what I have seen spam begets spam, no matter if its codex or FW
This is so true.
466
Post by: skkipper
I have no problem with people bringing them but i would be willing to bet most people didn't have the forgeworld books with them. if an event is allowing forgeworld, you should be required to have the books with you not photo copies of the rules.
4295
Post by: vhwolf
skkipper wrote:I have no problem with people bringing them but i would be willing to bet most people didn't have the forgeworld books with them. if an event is allowing forgeworld, you should be required to have the books with you not photo copies of the rules.
People should always have the rules for any unit they wish to use on hand. I used to agree they needed the book with them and always carried two backpacks full of books, but now days I have to drive at least 3.5 hours for a game so I just bring my iPad with PDF versions of all of the rules. I also bring a few print outs from my computer for opponents to read thru for Forgeworld stuff.
28365
Post by: OverwatchCNC
Dugg wrote:I am for ForgeWorld in Tournaments. They are part of the rules now and restricting them for the LAYMAN is not a valid reason. Reasonable men adapt to the world around them; unreasonable men make the world adapt to them. The World of 40k has changed and we must adapt to all of it.
To restrict FW on the basis of unfamiliarity screams “CHANGE IS BAD”. 6th Ed is a big change and FW units are part of the game now and if you come up against a FW unit you haven’t played before you simply read the rules on that unit, which your opponent is required to have and you adapt. This is not a difficult thing to do for a competent General. I still have to explain and show rules from my normal Codex to my opponents from time to time at Tournaments and I am running Orks.
I read through your posts and understand the points you are making and I have to disagree with you OverwatchCNC on this. Furthermore, I hope Frontline and other Major GTs keep allowing us to play with all available units allowed through the new GW rules.
6th Ed is a different game. We have to adapt to all of it and not jump to a negative outlook of restricting parts of it.
Sorry Dugg, I respect you and your opinion but equating 6th ed to FW doesn't work.
There is zero evidence in the actual 6th ed rulebook to support the idea that FW is somehow now part of 6th ed. There is just as much evidence of FW being part of the core rules in the 3rd-5th ed rulebooks as there is in the 6th ed book.
Like RiTides said the change to 6th ed does not automatically equal the necessity to include FW. This idea stems from the argument Reecius, Yakface, and many others to name a few made when 6th came out. The argument that "Hey, there are so many changes happening with 6th we may as well just go whole hog, jump in the deep end, and allow FW as well!" While a descent argument in and of itself it has absolutely zero basis in anything actually written in the 6th ed book more so than was written in 5th or before.
I am not for banning FW in all respects or at all tournaments. I just want there to be actual variety and I am encouraging TOs to not all jump on the FW bandwagon for bandwagonings sake.
22413
Post by: mwnciboo
MarkyMark wrote:
I have no problem with FW being used at tournies but it seems a few of the more competitive players are the ones moaning about them after this weekends tourny, most of these competitive players spammed either transports (i,e 5 GK razorbacks 5 chimerias with 3 'detta's, the two necron players with 3 nightsycthe 3 doom sycthe and a demon player with 3 lots of 9 flamers) from what I have seen spam begets spam, no matter if its codex or FW
Agreed, there is nothing quite so fine as a Mechanised Spamming Tank list, meets an Anti-Tank heavy Army and gets spanked.
Spammy army's are a specialist build, but as with many specialist build they exploit ill thought through rules and points undercosting to maximum effect. The problem is that to beat a Spammy Army, you generally have to Spam in the opposite direction and then you end up in a SPAM ARMS RACE.
Back on FW stuff, it should be at the TO discretion, I like the playing in tournaments with 1500 points + 250 point FW on models / Spearheads / Apocalypse units. But I wouldn't want to play that all the time, they are Fun Tournaments where we have board based special rules like Necron Pylon shooting at random units.
So long as the TO is clear it's a take it or leave it affair, I certainly don't spit my dummy out when I cannot take a Titan Hammer Squad or a Thunderhawk to a 2000pt Tournament. People need to get some perspective.
62238
Post by: MarkyMark
Without the hyperios launchers and I think quite a few saber things? and hydras the top players with the spammy lists would have walked it even more, but facing a lot of anti tank which were usually hiding behind a defence line a lot of them were restricted Without the hyperios's a lot of the marine armies wouldnt have been able to field that much anti tank
Sadly I didnt get a chance to watch the top table, where the ETC boys were playing as I would have liked to have seen them in action.
I am both for competitive tournies and fun tournies, as i have just started playing, heck i am used to losing but its a learning curve, most games I learnt something new about my army, or about the other codex's
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
Forgeworld is not part of 6th edition core rules. My bet is that tournaments in general that disallow FW will have a higher attendance than tournies that do.
713
Post by: mortetvie
Not all forgeworld is created equal and not all armies have equal access to equivocal units in forgeworld. Call it what you will but I think that forgeworld opens up a whole new bag of imbalance into 6th and overly favors imperial armies.
465
Post by: Redbeard
OverwatchCNC wrote:
There is zero evidence in the actual 6th ed rulebook to support the idea that FW is somehow now part of 6th ed. There is just as much evidence of FW being part of the core rules in the 3rd-5th ed rulebooks as there is in the 6th ed book.
There is also zero evidence in the 6th ed rulebook to support the idea that Space Wolves are legal. The Space Wolf codex says it's legal, and so you go with that. Guess what, the FW books say they're legal. They're published by GW. Their copyrights are owned by GW. They're sold at GW shops. They're just as legal as any codex. It is only your stubborn refusal to acknowledge what is written in clear English that keeps this argument going.
mortetvie wrote:Not all forgeworld is created equal and not all armies have equal access to equivocal units in forgeworld. Call it what you will but I think that forgeworld opens up a whole new bag of imbalance into 6th and overly favors imperial armies.
Not every codex is created equal and not all armies have equal access to equivocal units in their codex. This game isn't balanced from the get go. Space Marines don't get 2 base attacks, space wovles do. Space Marines don't get a heavy weapon squad that can split fire, space wolves do. Big F'n Deal. Favours Imperial armies? What codex doesn't? You're only pointing out the similarities between Forgeworld and the rest of GW here, you know.
8907
Post by: cadbren
Rules too difficult to get - but yet currently everyone is supposed to have a working knowledge of a dozen or so codices so what's one more.
Models too expensive - convert them from cheaper ones.
My army that was going to destroy all has been undone by FW units - deal with it like you expected that opponent you were going to wipe off the table to do.
It looks like FW AA may have saved the game from turning into a one sided strafing run or flyer fest.
Given that a lot of FW models are designed for larger games, it doesn't seem likely that FW will have that much effect.
I'm betting that a lot of those upgrades for land raiders will appear in the new codex and the same for the other units in their codecis.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Redbeard wrote:
Guess what, the FW books say they're legal. They're published by GW. Their copyrights are owned by GW. They're sold at GW shops.
FW models are also GW models. Anyone who has ever bought anything from FW will see that their sprues have Games Workshop on them.
8922
Post by: ironicsilence
Some interesting points made on both sides of the aisle in this thread...just for interest...has reading peoples comments changed anyone's personal stance on FW in tournaments?
26742
Post by: Dugg
@ OverwatchCNC – I am talking about the fact that we are playing 40k 6th Edition and FW has 40k approved units. I could easily say “The Current” Edition. FW units are 40k approved and they have all the 6th references in their newest FAQ.
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/v/vehicle6thupdates.pdf
ForgeWorld will help balance Tournaments not imbalance them. You don’t need a 1 for 1 equivalent per Codex to balance the game. Having FW in your Tournaments will open Anit-Flyer units in a larger scale and in turn you will see less Flyer spam as a result. This retroactively helps Armies that have problems with Flyers, helping those Armies without them ever having to take a FW unit themselves.
I’m talking big picture here guys.
All that said, OverwatchCNC you and other TOs can run Tournament however you guys see fit. Many of us on here are just happy to have you brave guys running these events and I commend you for doing so. I’m just giving my opinion and do understand that this will be a heated topic for some time to come. This doesn’t mean I will not attend a Tournament that does not allow FW, it just means that I would rather have FW and would have to weigh the rule set of said Tournament with cost of going and decide, much like everyone does already. ;-)
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
mortetvie wrote:Not all forgeworld is created equal and not all armies have equal access to equivocal units in forgeworld. Call it what you will but I think that forgeworld opens up a whole new bag of imbalance into 6th and overly favors imperial armies.
Or, in other words, "I haven't read the thread and just thought I'd post this here, despite the point having been raised six or seven times already".
29824
Post by: The Survivor
If you don't let forge world in Tournaments, then how do Red Scorpion players (with Apothecaries for all squads) enter? Hmm?
42370
Post by: Rampage
The Survivor wrote:If you don't let forge world in Tournaments, then how do Red Scorpion players (with Apothecaries for all squads) enter? Hmm?
Easy, change your list around to make them fit with one of the Marine codecies. They may not be as Red Scorpion-y as before, but at least they're tournament legal if the tournament in question has decided that it's not allowing Forge World. That's like saying, if you don't allow Forge World, then how do people with Contemptor Dreadnoughts in their army lists enter? Take the Contemptor Dreadnoughts out.
9594
Post by: RiTides
Run them as Blood Angels and take a ton of Sanguinary Priests and attach one to each unit? And just take some modelling liberties. That one's actually pretty easy!
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
RiTides wrote:Run them as Blood Angels and take a ton of Sanguinary Priests and attach one to each unit? And just take some modelling liberties. That one's actually pretty easy! I don't think he's trying to lose  . Red scorpions would probably slot pretty well into current meta actually. The marine sarge is a wasted opportunity cost these days, and FNP on all troops without the heavy added cost or vulnerability of something like the sang priest would be great.
8926
Post by: BladeWalker
ironicsilence wrote:Some interesting points made on both sides of the aisle in this thread...just for interest...has reading peoples comments changed anyone's personal stance on FW in tournaments?
I had no strong feelings either way, but now I am leaning toward no FW in tournaments. I see it sort of like the different formats in MTG (forgive me it has been a long time since I was into that game) because there is a huge difference between the decks that draw from all the sets and the decks that draw from only the newer ones. In smaller games of 1500 points or less it seems that FW can be a huge imbalancer depending on the army, perhaps limit it to larger competitions (2000+ points) so that the armies that don't get big FW buffs can at least take double FOC.
I think a double standard for counts-as exists when you allow FW units but not the same counts as freedoms that you allow with codex units. Then you factor in the "not so serious" tournament player who leaves with a "gotcha" feeling in his gut after facing a unit he wasn't fully familiar with. I should also explain that I don't have FW books or models so I have no real stake in the argument but it does make me wary of spending time and money to go to events that allow them because of unfamiliarity, perceived elitism, and biased counts as justifications.
Just my opinions from what I have learned from this very informative thread.
4295
Post by: vhwolf
Or just mabey he wants to play the army he built. He may have spent a ton of money and time on it.
62238
Post by: MarkyMark
From my experince last weekend, which I already mentioned, it wasnt the average players that were moaning (and there was quite a bit of moaning....) it was the higher end players that complained about forgeworld
Pretty much all the forgeworld models I have the rules for (ok I have read aeronautica a little) mainly use the USR's found in the 'core' rule book, i.e skyfire interceptor jink etc etc, a few have one new rule. I offered my aeronautica book to every opponent before the game, most said its cool after I explained its basically a krak missile with skyfire interceptor.
I can go through the rules and note exactly how many new rules there are but I doubt there will be more then 10 which covers all the units for the different races in there.
9742
Post by: doc dragon
I will have to say that I am not a big fan of using FW in tournaments.
That being said I will still go to tournaments that do allow FW.
Each TO has the right to run his or her own tournament the way they wish and FW is no different then say using custom Missions or Comp or any other thing they can think of.
AS LONG AS IT IS CLEAR before the tournament and we as players know what can happen then it would be fine with me.
The one thing I would really like to see is a list of each FW unit allowed in your tournament and what book it is currently in. There are too many cases of the same unit being in two or more books and if I as a player don't know about it then it really dosen't matter if my opponent shows me the rules in his book. If it's not the most recent book I would have no way of knowing.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
I agree with Doc above and second a list with the updated rules that will be allowed at a tournament. That way the most recent rules are going to be used. Every should be able to look at a codex and realize it's the old rules. That's not something that's possible with FW items.
Seperately I'll add that I feel FW heavily favors Imperial forces. Does this mean there are a higher percentage of poop units for Imperials? Sure. But the higher number means even a small percentage of good units is going to be higher for imperial forces, especially with allies.
Personally I think a lot of the drive of certain people to allow forgeworld is because of the percieved OP'ness of flyers in 6th. Personally I don't like the increase numbers of the interceptor rule in FW. If more units were just skyfire I'm cool with that. But being able to take relatively cheap units (Imperially anyway) that can affect flyers and ground units is a little much. And GW obviously doesn't endorse this since their most recent book had the interceptor rule present zero times and only a single skyfire option outside of the flyer.
Just my read on it.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Hulksmash wrote:
Personally I think a lot of the drive of certain people to allow forgeworld is because of the percieved OP'ness of flyers in 6th. Personally I don't like the increase numbers of the interceptor rule in FW. If more units were just skyfire I'm cool with that. But being able to take relatively cheap units (Imperially anyway) that can affect flyers and ground units is a little much.
Given that most aren't exactly spectacularly powerful units and serve little purpose if there aren't flyers around, they're not that big a deal for what typically are basically easily killed autocannon-equivalent units. One will notice that without Interceptor, Hydras actually aren't making as big appearance on tables as they were previously under 5th, at least in my observations, despite possibly being the best AA unit in the game otherwise.
And GW obviously doesn't endorse this since their most recent book had the interceptor rule present zero times and only a single skyfire option outside of the flyer.
That may be reading a bit too much into it. Heavy anti-aircraft capabilities isn't something one typically associates with CSM's, unlike say, Tau or Imperial Guard. Additionally just because one book doesn't have it doesn't mean they intend for such abilities to be super-rare, they may just not have thought it appropriate for CSM's for whatever reason (theme, want to wait until 6th is well and entrenched before bringing the hammer down on flyers, etc) or just legitimately didn't think about it. It's one book in, one that is largely a fantasy book mashed with the previous book more than anything truly new.
465
Post by: Redbeard
Vaktathi wrote: That may be reading a bit too much into it. Heavy anti-aircraft capabilities isn't something one typically associates with CSM's, unlike say, Tau or Imperial Guard. ...
Heavy anti-aircraft capabilities weren't something I typically associated with any 40k faction, given that aircraft were unknown 40,000 years in the future, until quite recently. If no one has aircraft, then why would anyone need anti-aircraft tools? Conversely, now that everyone has aircraft, it makes no sense that everyone doesn't have an answer to it.
32016
Post by: hemingway
having FW at tournaments is nothing but great for the game. space sharks, shadow spectres, tomb stalkers, beautiful models with cool rules..what's not to like?
the biggest bonus, outside of the aesthetic, is the addition of having a broader and more diverse meta which is continually changing: forgeworld regularly releases new stuff, which means that the meta isn't a static environment where one small subset of spam lists will dominate the tournament scene. i love the idea of showing up to a tournament and having no idea what kind of force i'm going to be facing.
it also doesn't hurt to know that if you're saddled with a weak codex for another 3 or 4 years, forgeworld might have something that makes your army playable again coming out next month.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Redbeard wrote: Vaktathi wrote: That may be reading a bit too much into it. Heavy anti-aircraft capabilities isn't something one typically associates with CSM's, unlike say, Tau or Imperial Guard. ...
Heavy anti-aircraft capabilities weren't something I typically associated with any 40k faction, given that aircraft were unknown 40,000 years in the future, until quite recently. If no one has aircraft, then why would anyone need anti-aircraft tools? Conversely, now that everyone has aircraft, it makes no sense that everyone doesn't have an answer to it.
True to an extent, however aircraft and defensive weapons are generally associated more with certain factions than others. The Imperial Guard for example, have had a model for AA units since almost the 90's from FW and an epic model longer IIRC, in addition to having it in their codex for more than 3 years now, along with extensive fluff/imagery of aircraft and cannons firing into the sky.
And I'm not saying every faction shouldn't have AA capabilities, only that GW doesn't necessarily think along the lines most rational people do. Oblits being Ld8 and no longer fearless with the new CSM book being one example of such
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Vaktathi wrote: Hulksmash wrote:
Personally I think a lot of the drive of certain people to allow forgeworld is because of the percieved OP'ness of flyers in 6th. Personally I don't like the increase numbers of the interceptor rule in FW. If more units were just skyfire I'm cool with that. But being able to take relatively cheap units (Imperially anyway) that can affect flyers and ground units is a little much.
Given that most aren't exactly spectacularly powerful units and serve little purpose if there aren't flyers around, they're not that big a deal for what typically are basically easily killed autocannon-equivalent units. One will notice that without Interceptor, Hydras actually aren't making as big appearance on tables as they were previously under 5th, at least in my observations, despite possibly being the best AA unit in the game otherwise.
The point is they are cheap enough to take so that they aren't a choice if there might be flyers. The reason you don't see hydra's is people being forced to choose anti-air over killing stuff on the table. Most forgeworld units aren't a choice. They give you the ability to do both. Havocs have the ability to do both but bear in mind that you pay out the nose for them (175pts for 5 dudes w/4 missile launchers) and still don't have the interceptor rule. Compare that to the sabre platforms. Honestly I feel that the inclusion of FW pushes us back toward 5th. Not away from it.
Redbeard covered the anti-air thoughts. Personally I'd think chaos would have more than marines since they are self reliant to an extent.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Hulksmash wrote:
The point is they are cheap enough to take so that they aren't a choice if there might be flyers.
Hrm, I don't think so, most are fairly easily engaged and/or easily killed (hydra platforms, flakkatraks, etc) or are hideously expensive (Eldar Firestorm).
The reason you don't see hydra's is people being forced to choose anti-air over killing stuff on the table.
and the fact that you can just take a ton of anti-infantry autocannons instead and still be decently covered for anti-air. Pure AA platforms just aren't worth it because too many armies don't have flyers and of those that do half are MC's that most AA weapons are rather pitiful against (oh yay, T6 3+ sv flying dudes that I need more than twice as many flakk missiles/ AA autocannon shots to kill as I do to kill a Stormraven!) or aren't taken all the time. They're *too* niche, and you're better off just bringing flyers of your own instead. Flyers themselves on the other hand are not too niche as they can engage every target without too much trouble.
Most forgeworld units aren't a choice. They give you the ability to do both.
You mean...just like Flyers themselves do? It's not like most of these are spectacular units in and of themselves for the most part either here.
Havocs have the ability to do both but bear in mind that you pay out the nose for them (175pts for 5 dudes w/4 missile launchers) and still don't have the interceptor rule.
And one will notice many feel they are overcosted as such. Point for point, you're not much worse off buying autocannons instead for 60pts less. A Forgefiend for the same cost will give you better anti-infantry/anti-vehicle capabilities and have an equal chance of killing a flyer outright and require only a slightly higher average number of shots to kill a flyer through HP loss.
Compare that to the sabre platforms. Honestly I feel that the inclusion of FW pushes us back toward 5th. Not away from it.
In what way?
Redbeard covered the anti-air thoughts. Personally I'd think chaos would have more than marines since they are self reliant to an extent.
I dunno, typically to my mind and the way it looks like they've been designed, they're more offensive oriented, prone to engage enemy flyers with their own flyers than ground based AA units. Either way, I'm not against them having AA units, just trying to explain how I see the designers choice regarding AA not as one purely of game balance, especially as the studio came right out and plainly stated at their open day event that they didn't design 6th and don't intend to design codex books around balanced competitive play.
So if you're playing that, you're already playing the game in a manner the design studio never intended and isn't writing rules/units for. I really wish the situation were different because I feel it'd benefit everyone, but it's not.
465
Post by: Redbeard
Vaktathi wrote:True to an extent, however aircraft and defensive weapons are generally associated more with certain factions than others. The Imperial Guard for example, have had a model for AA units since almost the 90's from FW and an epic model longer IIRC, in addition to having it in their codex for more than 3 years now, along with extensive fluff/imagery of aircraft and cannons firing into the sky.
And I'm not saying every faction shouldn't have AA capabilities, only that GW doesn't necessarily think along the lines most rational people do. Oblits being Ld8 and no longer fearless with the new CSM book being one example of such
When I think of anti-aircraft, I think of German 88mm guns, and handheld ground-to-air missiles. While the former might look IGish, the latter is perfectly reasonable to imagine in the hands of chaos, marines, guard, orks or whatever. I think it's somewhat funny that an argument against forgeworld in tournaments is that it might give anti-air guns to factions "not perceived to have anti-air capabilities", based on a perception formed by FW units.
Hulksmash wrote:
The point is they are cheap enough to take so that they aren't a choice if there might be flyers. The reason you don't see hydra's is people being forced to choose anti-air over killing stuff on the table.
Agreed with Hulk, but wanted to add, this is absolutely ridiculous from any realism perspective. The aforementioned German 88s were one of the most feared anti-tank guns in WWII. They were designed as anti-aircraft guns. The idea that you can't point an anti-aircraft gun at a ground target is so laughably bad, it could only have come from GW.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Vaktathi wrote:... especially as the studio came right out and plainly stated at their open day event that they didn't design 6th and don't intend to design codex books around balanced competitive play.
So if you're playing that, you're already playing the game in a manner the design studio never intended and isn't writing rules/units for. I really wish the situation were different because I feel it'd benefit everyone, but it's not.
Strangely, the GW design team said the exact same thing, that they weren't interested in designing rules or codexes around balanced competitive play. Simply being involved in a tournament is playing the game in a manner that the designers never intended...
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Redbeard wrote:
When I think of anti-aircraft, I think of German 88mm guns, and handheld ground-to-air missiles. While the former might look IGish, the latter is perfectly reasonable to imagine in the hands of chaos, marines, guard, orks or whatever. I think it's somewhat funny that an argument against forgeworld in tournaments is that it might give anti-air guns to factions "not perceived to have anti-air capabilities", based on a perception formed by FW units.
I'm not saying that perception is based on FW units, hydras originally are from epic if I'm not mistaken, but really it's more about how CSM's are generally portrayed. They are offensive in nature, they don't carry lots of defensive countermeasures. The new book illustrates this concept several ways. One is that SM's have Bolster Defenses, CSM's have Shatter Defenses, etc.
It's just one way to look at *why* they didn't necessarily include lots of AA stuff in the CSM book that's not game balance related. I'm not saying it's definitive or anything like that.
Hulksmash wrote:
Agreed with Hulk, but wanted to add, this is absolutely ridiculous from any realism perspective. The aforementioned German 88s were one of the most feared anti-tank guns in WWII. They were designed as anti-aircraft guns. The idea that you can't point an anti-aircraft gun at a ground target is so laughably bad, it could only have come from GW.
Indeed it is, in fact, 88's were much better AT guns than they were AA guns. As AA guns they were designed to engage aircraft at high altitude in conjunction with multiple other guns, whereas in an AT role they could engage and destroy multiple tanks within minutes by themselves.
Strangely, the GW design team said the exact same thing, that they weren't interested in designing rules or codexes around balanced competitive play. Simply being involved in a tournament is playing the game in a manner that the designers never intended...
Right, that's exactly what I was saying, so if you're already engaging in play in a manner that the game wasn't intended for, that was never designed to be balanced in the first place, I'm not really seeing the standing on "balance" for tournaments not allowing Forgeworld considering it's already way outside what the game was designed and intended for in the first place, all it's going to do is produce a slightly different meta.
22413
Post by: mwnciboo
Indeed it is, in fact, 88's were much better AT guns than they were AA guns. As AA guns they were designed to engage aircraft at high altitude in conjunction with multiple other guns, whereas in an AT role they could engage and destroy multiple tanks within minutes by themselves.
One of the interesting things about AA Guns, is that you want a High Velocity shell with as straight a trajectory as possible combined with very high elevation angles in order to lay fused shells precisely in space so they detonate providing Flak bursts for aircraft to fly through. (the high speed and relatively flat trajectory tend to make good AT guns!).
The Royal Navy has had issues as the 4.5" Gun designed back in 1938 (although it has been updated through service life), it is a very accurate and good gun system. The problem is it is too accurate, great at hitting a precise point in space, however in shore bombardment it is too accurate and therefore area bombardments were ineffective until they designed the system to have an Error input in the system to make it more effective against land based targets.
Every hear of gun being too accurate? Also that is alot of Brass there, some serious cash at a scrap merchants  we used to make them into Umbrella Stands... Till the penny pinchers came in.
Way off-topic but couldn't resist. *ahem* back to FW at Tourneys.
62238
Post by: MarkyMark
Hulksmash wrote:. And GW obviously doesn't endorse this since their most recent book had the interceptor rule present zero times and only a single skyfire option outside of the flyer.
Just my read on it.
Quad gun or Icacrus las cannon?
3933
Post by: Kingsley
I'd be fine with Forge World as long as there was a ban list for the few units that simply ruin some matchups (Sabre Defense Platforms, Cæstus Assault Ram, etc.), but I think that no Forge World is a more logical way to go than Forge World with a ban list, and Forge World without a ban list seems extremely unbalanced.
Hulksmash's points about the restriction of Interceptor are dead on. Interceptor is an extremely powerful rule and should not be handed out as liberally as it is with many Forge World units.
8926
Post by: BladeWalker
Interceptor just auto wins on Daemons too.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
O'gosh, I get to shoot them with one gun out of sequence and that makes it OP.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
MarkyMark wrote: Hulksmash wrote:. And GW obviously doesn't endorse this since their most recent book had the interceptor rule present zero times and only a single skyfire option outside of the flyer. Just my read on it. Quad gun or Icacrus las cannon? That's pretty out of context. GW allows every army the option to buy a single interceptor/skyfire model. The first codex in 6th has zero interceptor and one skyfire unit that isn't a flyer. Only a single unit was given skyfire at the beginning of 6th across the entire range. So we're up to two non-fortication/flyer units with skyfire. Does it seem they want it as prevelant as Forgeworld gives out? And that's why I said I feel like allowing forgeworld unlimited is going back to 5th. Since flyers would quickly go down the toilet bowl and Daemons would be back to being nearly unplayable. Yay! @Gray Templar The problem is it isn't a single weapon. Forgeworld gives you access to quite a few. That's why I said nearly, not totally.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Consider what you give up to take all that Skyfire from Forge World.
FW units often come with a steep price tag, either in points or competitive FoC slot.
Just because you can take X number of good FW units doesn't mean its the best idea. You often lose out on other choices in your codex that might be essential.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Hulksmash wrote:That's pretty out of context. GW allows every army the option to buy a single interceptor/skyfire model. The first codex in 6th has zero interceptor and one skyfire unit that isn't a flyer. Only a single unit was given skyfire at the beginning of 6th across the entire range. So we're up to two non-fortication/flyer units with skyfire. Does it seem they want it as prevelant as Forgeworld gives out?
Well, given that they published IA:Aeronautica instead of telling the author to go back and try again, I'd say it's a safe bet that GW wants that much AA available.
And you could also argue that the rest of 6th has so little AA because FW offers those units. If FW has printed a perfectly good AA unit already and you don't have an additional model to sell with new rules, why add it to the codex? You might even suggest that GW sees flyers as being a rare supplement to the game, so a quad gun is fine and the only reason you'd need AA is if you're also adding lots of flyers to make a special flyer-based scenario. I would not be surprised at all to hear that GW had no clue stuff like Necron flyerspam was ever going to be played in a real game.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
Grey Templar wrote:Consider what you give up to take all that Skyfire from Forge World.
FW units often come with a steep price tag, either in points or competitive FoC slot.
Just because you can take X number of good FW units doesn't mean its the best idea. You often lose out on other choices in your codex that might be essential.
That is so untrue. FW gives these out like candy at very cheap. The FW has been proposed by some to help boost attendance at their events in my opinion.
Based on this tread I don't their is enough true support to get it off the ground and Adepticon is an exception to the general rule.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Peregrine wrote: Hulksmash wrote:That's pretty out of context. GW allows every army the option to buy a single interceptor/skyfire model. The first codex in 6th has zero interceptor and one skyfire unit that isn't a flyer. Only a single unit was given skyfire at the beginning of 6th across the entire range. So we're up to two non-fortication/flyer units with skyfire. Does it seem they want it as prevelant as Forgeworld gives out?
Well, given that they published IA:Aeronautica instead of telling the author to go back and try again, I'd say it's a safe bet that GW wants that much AA available.
And you could also argue that the rest of 6th has so little AA because FW offers those units. If FW has printed a perfectly good AA unit already and you don't have an additional model to sell with new rules, why add it to the codex? You might even suggest that GW sees flyers as being a rare supplement to the game, so a quad gun is fine and the only reason you'd need AA is if you're also adding lots of flyers to make a special flyer-based scenario. I would not be surprised at all to hear that GW had no clue stuff like Necron flyerspam was ever going to be played in a real game.
I'm pretty sure I'm a reasonable human being. After the way you've conducted yourself in this thread and a few others you're one of those people I simply won't bother discussing things with you. I felt the need to let you know since it will save us both time. I will however have conversations with rational individuals with whom I disagree.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Hulksmash wrote:I'm pretty sure I'm a reasonable human being. After the way you've conducted yourself in this thread and a few others you're one of those people I simply won't bother discussing things with you. I felt the need to let you know since it will save us both time. I will however have conversations with rational individuals with whom I disagree.
Yeah, such an unreasonable position, suggesting that the default be that we play the game according to the actual rules...
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Peregrine wrote:. I would not be surprised at all to hear that GW had no clue stuff like Necron flyerspam was ever going to be played in a real game.
As clueless as I believe they are sometimes, they can't be that clueless.
62238
Post by: MarkyMark
Hulksmash wrote:MarkyMark wrote: Hulksmash wrote:. And GW obviously doesn't endorse this since their most recent book had the interceptor rule present zero times and only a single skyfire option outside of the flyer.
Just my read on it.
Quad gun or Icacrus las cannon?
That's pretty out of context. GW allows every army the option to buy a single interceptor/skyfire model. The first codex in 6th has zero interceptor and one skyfire unit that isn't a flyer. Only a single unit was given skyfire at the beginning of 6th across the entire range. So we're up to two non-fortication/flyer units with skyfire. Does it seem they want it as prevelant as Forgeworld gives out?
And that's why I said I feel like allowing forgeworld unlimited is going back to 5th. Since flyers would quickly go down the toilet bowl and Daemons would be back to being nearly unplayable. Yay!
@Gray Templar
The problem is it isn't a single weapon. Forgeworld gives you access to quite a few. That's why I said nearly, not totally.
Ah most recent book i.e CSM, sorry I read most recent as the rule book my bad. Although I do agree interceptor is overpowered in that it can shoot at anything coming in from reserves and as you mention demons, having a large amount of saber or hyperios do usually tear demons a new one.
It does need some balance as at the moment flyer spam cannot be countered by most armies without having flyer spam yourself, did GW intended flyers to be king and hard to hit by most things, did GW intend for interceptor to be rare and special? I have no idea how GW act or think when writing rules so I cant comment on that, but it is at the opposite ends of the scale and currently doesnt seem very fair, FW can help address the balance but it can also be spammed just like every other powerful unit in the game FW or 'core'.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
MarkyMark wrote:Although I do agree interceptor is overpowered in that it can shoot at anything coming in from reserves and as you mention demons, having a large amount of saber or hyperios do usually tear demons a new one.
To be fair, we can't really blame FW for that, since it's the fault of whatever idiot GW author thought it would be a good idea to combine "may also shoot at ground targets" and "may take a free shot at incoming reserves" into a single rule without allowing "may also shoot at ground targets" as a separate rule. FW HAD to give those units Interceptor just to let them continue to shoot at ground targets effectively.
3933
Post by: Kingsley
I prefer "no Forge World" to "no Flyers." I'm not sure that either one is intrinsically more balanced than the other, but quite frankly, Flyers are a core part of the game and Forge World models aren't, and I'd rather force as few people to change as possible. In particular, allowing Sabre Defense Platforms essentially makes Flyers irrelevant to the game, and slams Codex: Dæmons and Drop Pod armies pretty damn hard to boot. There really isn't much of a reason to field Flyers when Sabre Defense Platforms (and to a lesser extent Hyperios Air Defense Launchers) are in the game,
Since GW's 6th edition balance clearly seems to involve interplay between Flyers and limited ground-to-air choices, I think allowing some of the ridiculous ground-to-air options provided by Forge World substantially reduces the balance and skill involved in 6th edition play.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Kingsley wrote:I'm not sure that either one is intrinsically more balanced than the other, but quite frankly, Flyers are a core part of the game and Forge World models aren't, and I'd rather force as few people to change as possible.
Except that FW is just as much a core part of the game as flyers. Unless of course by "flyers" you mean only codex units, with the ork and marine flyers banned?
As for forcing people to change, why is this even being considered? Do we ban the use of any codex written after a certain point so that nobody has to change their army to account for new stuff? Do we keep playing 5th because people would have to change their armies to deal with the new changes 6th adds? Do we ban people from trying new army concepts because it might introduce a metagame shift that forces people to change their armies to adapt? Of course we don't. Change is a constant in 40k, and you either deal with it or stop playing, no matter where the change comes from.
In particular, allowing Sabre Defense Platforms essentially makes Flyers irrelevant to the game, and slams Codex: Dæmons and Drop Pod armies pretty damn hard to boot. There really isn't much of a reason to field Flyers when Sabre Defense Platforms (and to a lesser extent Hyperios Air Defense Launchers) are in the game,
Except:
1) Flyers and dedicated AA units exist in balance. If the metagame favors flyers dedicated AA becomes popular. If people stop bringing flyers because of all the Sabre and Hyperios platforms then those AA units become redundant and people stop bringing them. Eventually things will most likely settle at some kind of balance where both exist to some degree but neither dominates.
2) They don't hurt flyers, they hurt flyerspam armies. You know, the armies that have no meaningful on-table presence to blow up the AA units before they get to fire. Sure, that's hard to do against AA spam, but AA spam only exists until it drives flyerspam out of the metagame. Once you're talking about a small number of platforms a list with 1-2 flyers can kill them before the flyers arrive.
Plus, if you're really paranoid about those platforms ruining the game, there's a simple solution: ban aegis lines.
Since GW's 6th edition balance clearly seems to involve interplay between Flyers and limited ground-to-air choices, I think allowing some of the ridiculous ground-to-air options provided by Forge World substantially reduces the balance and skill involved in 6th edition play.
How is there skill involved in "my codex doesn't have any AA weapons"? Or in "throw lots of AC shots at it and hope for 6s"? This isn't really deep strategy we're talking about here.
3933
Post by: Kingsley
Peregrine wrote: Kingsley wrote:I'm not sure that either one is intrinsically more balanced than the other, but quite frankly, Flyers are a core part of the game and Forge World models aren't, and I'd rather force as few people to change as possible.
Except that FW is just as much a core part of the game as flyers. Unless of course by "flyers" you mean only codex units, with the ork and marine flyers banned?
Don't play this sort of game, it only makes you look silly. Everyone knows Games Workshop produced models exist on a different level than Forge World produced models. If Games Workshop itself said, in a Games Workshop publication, that Forge World models were legal, then they'd be on the same level. As it stands, they aren't, and the fact that official Games Workshop tournaments don't allow them should be all the proof we need to put this tired old myth to rest.
Peregrine wrote:In particular, allowing Sabre Defense Platforms essentially makes Flyers irrelevant to the game, and slams Codex: Dæmons and Drop Pod armies pretty damn hard to boot. There really isn't much of a reason to field Flyers when Sabre Defense Platforms (and to a lesser extent Hyperios Air Defense Launchers) are in the game,
Except:
1) Flyers and dedicated AA units exist in balance. If the metagame favors flyers dedicated AA becomes popular. If people stop bringing flyers because of all the Sabre and Hyperios platforms then those AA units become redundant and people stop bringing them. Eventually things will most likely settle at some kind of balance where both exist to some degree but neither dominates.
This sounds well and good, but unfortunately Forge World's anti-aircraft units don't exist in balance, because they're very strong choices even if flyers aren't in the game. For instance, Sabre platforms count as Artillery and are thus massively better than the Imperial Guard Heavy Weapon Squads they replace. Normally, there is a balance-- flakk missiles, for instance, are expensive enough that taking them is a serious choice-- but Forge World has several units that counter flyers while still being obvious choices for a normal army. For instance, Forge World rules give normal "Rifleman" Dreadnoughts Interceptor and Skyfire when stationary in a Dark Angels army. Since people already run those all the time, all changes like this do is hose Flyers.
Thus, allowing these units unbalances the Flyer metagame element provided by 6th edition. There's no reason to make tough choices about your balance of Flyers, dedicated anti-air units, and pseudo anti-air units when you can simply take units that are good against ground units and also-- seemingly for free-- get to blow Flyers out of the sky before the Flyers even get a chance to attack.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Kingsley wrote:Don't play this sort of game, it only makes you look silly. Everyone knows Games Workshop produced models exist on a different level than Forge World produced models. If Games Workshop itself said, in a Games Workshop publication, that Forge World models were legal, then they'd be on the same level. As it stands, they aren't, and the fact that official Games Workshop tournaments don't allow them should be all the proof we need to put this tired old myth to rest.
Every single FW book is a Games Workshop publication, so your standard has been met.
And who cares what GW allows in their single remaining tournament, they also don't allow more than 500 points of allies. But yet I don't see anyone demanding that everyone follow GW's example and ban lists with more than 500 points of allies.
This sounds well and good, but unfortunately Forge World's anti-aircraft units don't exist in balance, because they're very strong choices even if flyers aren't in the game. For instance, Sabre platforms count as Artillery and are thus massively better than the Imperial Guard Heavy Weapon Squads they replace.
Sure, but HWS aren't that good so it doesn't take much for a unit to be better than them. In the absence of flyerspam lists to worry about the Sabre platforms are good, but a little on the expensive side and not something you can afford to spam.
For instance, Forge World rules give normal "Rifleman" Dreadnoughts Interceptor and Skyfire when stationary in a Dark Angels army. Since people already run those all the time, all changes like this do is hose Flyers.
Yeah, I'm not really seeing the problem with giving the poor Dark Angels player (singular) something decent to make up for the rest of the codex being awful.
There's no reason to make tough choices about your balance of Flyers, dedicated anti-air units, and pseudo anti-air units when you can simply take units that are good against ground units and also-- seemingly for free-- get to blow Flyers out of the sky before the Flyers even get a chance to attack.
You're right, that would be a problem. Fortunately we don't have that problem since FW's AA units aren't like that. At most you could argue that the Sabre guns are too good (though mostly because GW changed the artillery rules, the old Sabre platforms were pretty bad), but all of the other AA units are marginal at best if you don't need to plan against flyerspam.
23433
Post by: schadenfreude
Interceptor doesn't autowin against all deamon lists. Sure it would work well against flying circus, but T3/t4 Tzeentch deamons are not a great target for intercepting lascannons, and once they intercept they don't shoot next turn.
465
Post by: Redbeard
Kingsley wrote:
Don't play this sort of game, it only makes you look silly. Everyone knows Games Workshop produced models exist on a different level than Forge World produced models.
No, not everyone knows this. Some of us know that Forgeworld models are GW models. That's the portion of us who are literate.
Thus, allowing these units unbalances the Flyer metagame element provided by 6th edition
You have once again made the mistake of believing that the metagame is balanced, with or without Forgeworld. Any argument against the inclusion of Forgeworld that uses the word balance is automatically invalid.
464
Post by: muwhe
You have once again made the mistake of believing that the metagame is balanced, with or without Forgeworld. Any argument against the inclusion of Forgeworld that uses the word balance is automatically invalid.
+1 this.
62238
Post by: MarkyMark
Redbeard wrote:Kingsley wrote:
Don't play this sort of game, it only makes you look silly. Everyone knows Games Workshop produced models exist on a different level than Forge World produced models.
No, not everyone knows this. Some of us know that Forgeworld models are GW models. That's the portion of us who are literate.
Thus, allowing these units unbalances the Flyer metagame element provided by 6th edition
You have once again made the mistake of believing that the metagame is balanced, with or without Forgeworld. Any argument against the inclusion of Forgeworld that uses the word balance is automatically invalid.
Totally agree that the 'core' rules arent balanced across the board, and he gave a perfect example of one, Dark Angels, how, bar the can possibly hurt one flyer a turn emplaced guns, can DA's hurt flyers, just shoot everything they have in the air in the hope of getting 6's, ignoring whats on the ground? they have NO flyers without allies and not everyone wants to take allies and they have only the quad and lascannon to take down flyers, facing a flyer heavy army guess whats getting shot to pieces first....
9594
Post by: RiTides
Hulksmash wrote:I agree with Doc above and second a list with the updated rules that will be allowed at a tournament. That way the most recent rules are going to be used. Every should be able to look at a codex and realize it's the old rules. That's not something that's possible with FW items.
Seperately I'll add that I feel FW heavily favors Imperial forces. Does this mean there are a higher percentage of poop units for Imperials? Sure. But the higher number means even a small percentage of good units is going to be higher for imperial forces, especially with allies.
Personally I think a lot of the drive of certain people to allow forgeworld is because of the percieved OP'ness of flyers in 6th. Personally I don't like the increase numbers of the interceptor rule in FW. If more units were just skyfire I'm cool with that. But being able to take relatively cheap units (Imperially anyway) that can affect flyers and ground units is a little much. And GW obviously doesn't endorse this since their most recent book had the interceptor rule present zero times and only a single skyfire option outside of the flyer.
Just my read on it.
I really liked this post! I read the responses, but imo he explained his point really well and it's a reasonable point to make.
However, that discussion aside, I believe we established pages back that balance or perceived lack thereof is not necessarily the main reason to include/not include FW in a tournament.
Regarding the other point Hulk made above: since knowing exactly what rules are in use at an event is crucial, having an updated list of what book is currently providing the rules for a unit (for ones that have been updated multiple times / are in multiple books / etc) as Doc suggested and Hulk agreed with above, sounds imperative to me.
Saying "that's the responsibility of the player" only reinforces why folks are hesitant to have FW included. There are so many rules all over the place, having a list of exactly what units (or at the minimum, what books!!!) are allowed would be awesome, since it would make it much easier to prepare.
If there were units from say, 3 Imperial Armour books, with appropriate online updates- I feel that's somewhat reasonable. However, as an outsider to FW, I see that we're on IA9 or IA Volume 2 / ?? and get pretty darn intimidated. I don't even know the order / most recent, or which ones to pick up to prepare for a tournament allowing FW. So, (to the TOs) please consider including such a list for the events you decide to allow FW in! It would make the barrier to entry a lot easier to overcome for people who are not very familiar with FW, I think. The Adepticon requirement of asking the person to bring an extra printed out sheet of the rules to easily hand to their opponent to glance over is also a great provision, imo.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
RiTides wrote:If there were units from say, 3 Imperial Armour books, with appropriate online updates- I feel that's somewhat reasonable. However, as an outsider to FW, I see that we're on IA9 or IA Volume 2 / ?? and get pretty darn intimidated. I don't even know the order / most recent, or which ones to pick up to prepare for a tournament allowing FW.
I brought this up in another thread, and while I personally thought it was a valid point to make, I was basically accused of lying about not being able to tell which books had the most current rules in them. According to Yodhrin it should have taken me "two minutes to ascertain the information on my own", and that I was merely pretending not to know so that I could "maintain my fiction that FW rules are hard to find". Which was complete bs by the way, because if it weren't for Peregrine I honestly wouldn't have known which books had the most "current" rules in them. Personally I still doubt that those three books have all the rules.
Crap like that is one of the reasons why I'd simply rather not bother with it at all.
465
Post by: Redbeard
RiTides wrote:
However, that discussion aside, I believe we established pages back that balance or perceived lack thereof is not necessarily the main reason to include/not include FW in a tournament.
Regarding the other point Hulk made above: since knowing exactly what rules are in use at an event is crucial, having an updated list of what book is currently providing the rules for a unit (for ones that have been updated multiple times / are in multiple books / etc) as Doc suggested and Hulk agreed with above, sounds imperative to me.
Saying "that's the responsibility of the player" only reinforces why folks are hesitant to have FW included. There are so many rules all over the place, having a list of exactly what units (or at the minimum, what books!!!) are allowed would be awesome, since it would make it much easier to prepare.
If there were units from say, 3 Imperial Armour books, with appropriate online updates- I feel that's somewhat reasonable. However, as an outsider to FW, I see that we're on IA9 or IA Volume 2 / ?? and get pretty darn intimidated.
I own all of the books, and I need to spend a little time to figure out which is the most recent rule for any given model. But I also own three Space Marine codexes and four Tyranid codexes, and a few White Dwarves with rules in them, so that's a task without FW too. I honestly wouldn't know what to do if my opponent showed up with one of those shadowweaver eldar tank things, and that's a " gw model".
I don't even know the order
Well, they start at Volume 1, and go up through Volume 11, pretty much numerically.
So, (to the TOs) please consider including such a list for the events you decide to allow FW in! It would make the barrier to entry a lot easier to overcome for people who are not very familiar with FW, I think. The Adepticon requirement of asking the person to bring an extra printed out sheet of the rules to easily hand to their opponent to glance over is also a great provision, imo.
This is actually a good point/idea. Though asking for print-outs is questionable legally. (Not a lawyer). Automatically Appended Next Post: Sidstyler wrote:
I brought this up in another thread, and while I personally thought it was a valid point to make, I was basically accused of lying about not being able to tell which books had the most current rules in them. According to Yodhrin it should have taken me "two minutes to ascertain the information on my own", and that I was merely pretending not to know so that I could "maintain my fiction that FW rules are hard to find". Which was complete bs by the way, because if it weren't for Peregrine I honestly wouldn't have known which books had the most "current" rules in them. Personally I still doubt that those three books have all the rules.
To be fair, two minutes is a little too short. 10-15, however, and you'd be good to go, provided you actually put in the effort. It's not that Peregrine got you info that's not available, it's that you didn't even bother trying to get it on your own.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Redbeard wrote:
I own all of the books, and I need to spend a little time to figure out which is the most recent rule for any given model. But I also own three Space Marine codexes and four Tyranid codexes, and a few White Dwarves with rules in them, so that's a task without FW too. I honestly wouldn't know what to do if my opponent showed up with one of those shadowweaver eldar tank things, and that's a " gw model".
You're going to honestly say it would take you longer than 10 seconds to remember which is the most recent Tyranid codex versus which of 11 Forgeworld books has the most recent rules for whichever unit?
I can't believe you'd make that comparison.
3560
Post by: Phazael
Perhaps a non FW tournament or two could be won by the cylon deathfleet before we open the floodgates and let FW in whole hog? This is a lot like all the GK whining for the last two years, but meanwhile SW and IG were still dominating all the events. Let the game be played as it is and let some actual hard data come in before taking a correcting pencil to it.
9594
Post by: RiTides
Redbeard- I thought IA Vol 2 was the most recent? Like they changed the numbering? Honest question...
I was just throwing the number 3 out there, but Sidstyler mentioned 3 after, so now I'm curious. Are there 3 IA books that would contain all "non-Apocalypse only" units? That'd be great, and could entice me to pick them up. I know I'm not the only one in this boat- I tend to be one of the better-informed of my gaming group. But there's just not much FW use here, so it's hard to know what's really needed. Any clarifications/tips would be great!
18698
Post by: kronk
Redbeard wrote:
I don't even know the order
Well, they start at Volume 1, and go up through Volume 11, pretty much numerically.
I know you're being silly, but I have to call Shenanigans here. Yes, the IA books are numbered 1-11, but
1. Not all of them have a table of contents on the FW site, so how do you know what's in each book?
2. They absolutely don't have the same units in the books.
3. There is also IA Apocalypse 2, IA Apocalypse Second Edition, and IA Aeronautica that were published in between the IA 1-11 books that made some units in IA 1-11 obsolete.
4. Did you miss the discussion a few pages back where I had to correct the guy using the pdf from 2008 to add a Lucious Pattern Drop pod to a Blood Angels army despite IA Apocalypse Second Edition forbidding BA, adding points, adding a FO slow, and adding a dangerous terrain test before assaulting, none of which the guy was using?
The simple fact that someone has to research for 10 minutes which IA book has the most recent rules for Unit X shows that there is a knowledge gap. I'll repeat what I said earlier, if a TO is going to allow FW units, he had better own or have friends bring ALL of the F'ing IA books with him or you'll have someone bring an old IA book (either unknowingly or maliciously), and using outdated rules.
464
Post by: muwhe
I don't think Redbeard is saying that at all.
The reality is you are never going to have 1 book that has everything you need in the hobby. It's a matter of degrees.
The current space marine codex is out of date. It and all other 5th edition and older books require the updated 6th edition FAQs in order to function. In fact, unless you have the Space Marine Codex on the IPAD, you also need a copy of the White Dwarf with the Storm Talon rules to have all the Space Marine Codex rules on hand.
Does that mean we shouldn't allow the Storm Talon? The Space Marine Codex on the Ipad is a different version than the combined Space Marine Codex + FAQ. Which are the current rules?
The point is ... there is some overhead in being in this hobby and playing this game. That is not strictly a Forgeworld issue.
AdeptiCon produces this document every year to layout what book has the most current version of the rules and what AdeptiCon events allow Forgeworld models.
http://www.adepticon.org/12rules/201240KIAApoc.pdf
As we get closer to AdeptiCon we will update it for 2013 as well.
18698
Post by: kronk
muwhe wrote: The current space marine codex is out of date. It and all other 5th edition and older books require the updated 6th edition FAQs in order to function. In fact, unless you have the Space Marine Codex on the IPAD, you also need a copy of the White Dwarf with the Storm Talon rules to have all the Space Marine Codex rules on hand. Sorry, but that is not a valid comparison at all. The 5th edition Space Marine Codex makes everything in the 4th edition Space Marine codex obsolete. Any TO worth his salt will know the 5th edition codex from the 4th, and catch any errors. However, subsequent IA books DO NOT make other IA books obsolete. What subsequent IA books do is make Unit X from IA book A obsolete, and Unit Y from IA Book B obsolete. If you aren't familiar with ALL of the FW books or at least have access to them, you're going to F-up. That Adepticon link is Aces by the way. GREAT idea and good work, there!  That will be very useful for a TO running FW units and will help prevent players from using the wrong rules.
465
Post by: Redbeard
kronk wrote:
I know you're being silly, but I have to call Shenanigans here.
What does that mean, calling shenanigans? Is that from a movie?
The simple fact that someone has to research for 10 minutes which IA book has the most recent rules for Unit X shows that there is a knowledge gap.
And yet, it's still easier to get this information than to get the rules for the Eldar Shadowtank, or even the entire Sisters army. The points you raise are valid concerns, but they're nothing new. I've attended tournaments (in the past) where my opponent was running Kroot Mercenaries. I've played against Lost and the Damned. These were never printed codexes, and their rules weren't widely available. Did they break the game? No. Did I still have a good time at the tournament? Yes. Did I know everything those lists could do before encountering them? No. Did it matter? No. My opponent had the rules with them, and I was able to ask them questions and check their rules during the game.
This is not a complicated game. It's not a balanced game. All these arguments stem from fear of the unknown, nothing more. But, really, what's to fear? My opponent might use a model that I haven't seen before, and, in a game where things have AVs and Wounds, I might not be able to figure out how to kill it? My opponent might spring a hidden synergy on me? My opponent might find an "unfair" advantage?? (As if using the Space Wolf codex at all isn't an unfair advantage). You might have to think on your feet a little. Is that so scary? Are you admitting that you can't think on your feet? That you can't come up with a strategy to handle a model you hadn't seen before? God forbid you get put on a table with terrain you didn't expect, you'd probably lose the whole tournament. It might change the Meta?? Seriously? Every new White Dwarf might change the Meta... The level of paranoia here is just disgusting. They're toy soldiers. They look cool. They're not going to ruin your universe.
18698
Post by: kronk
I'm ignoring all of your "Is that so scary questions" as you are crossing into personal attacks and straw man arguments.
We don't know each other from Adam, but I (and my group) are very Pro-FW.
The points I am making is that a TO needs to take it upon himself to know what rules are current to avoid someone cheating or using the wrong version unintentionally.
Further, players need to make the choice to either be familiar with what the current rules are for each unit or just not play in a FW tournament. It doesn't do you any good to read the guy's IA book if it's the outdated IA book for the unit in question, as an example.
465
Post by: Redbeard
kronk wrote:I'm ignoring all of your "Is that so scary questions" as you are crossing into personal attacks and straw man arguments.
They might not be your arguments, but they'r enot straw men - these are the exact reasons that others have posted, in this thread, for not wanting to allow FW at tournaments.
The points I am making is that a TO needs to take it upon himself to know what rules are current to avoid someone cheating or using the wrong version unintentionally.
Agreed. Although, I don't really know if it would be all that bad if someone used an older version, if that's the version of the rules they brought with them. As long as both players can look at the same page in a book and agree that it's what they're using, if it's the most recent version or not isn't going to matter.
Further, players need to make the choice to either be familiar with what the current rules are for each unit or just not play in a FW tournament. It doesn't do you any good to read the guy's IA book if it's the outdated IA book for the unit in question, as an example.
I don't think people need to know all the current rules to play in a tournament. That's the mindset that's scaring people away from FW. Again, this isn't that complex of a game. You don't need to know everything about every unit you might potentially encounter in order to play and have fun (and even win). There's nothing out there that's going to be so surprising that simply talking to your opponent at the beginning of the game won't address. Six questions: "What is that? What is it's statline? How does it move? What does it shoot and what's it's range? What does it do in assault? Does it have any special rules?" As long as they have whatever version of the rules they're using, you can play a game with them.
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
kronk wrote:
That Adepticon link is Aces by the way. GREAT idea and good work, there!  That will be very useful for a TO running FW units and will help prevent players from using the wrong rules.
That does look like a good, comprehensive product and a nightmare to maintain. What happens when it's wrong? For example, I went looking for the one FW unit I care about, the Wraithseer. I have Imperial Armor Apocalypse, Second Edition. I bought it because of the Wraithseer. The Adepticon document shows IA11 as the proper reference for the Wraithseer. I think IAA:2E is newer than IA11. Shouldn't the list show that instead of IA11? Are the rules the same in both books? (I don't own IA11 to check) How many other units have this kind of discrepancy?
18698
Post by: kronk
I think you have IA11 and Apoc 2nd edition backwards, Arshbombe, but my books are at home.
Redbeard wrote:
Further, players need to make the choice to either be familiar with what the current rules are for each unit or just not play in a FW tournament. It doesn't do you any good to read the guy's IA book if it's the outdated IA book for the unit in question, as an example.
I don't think people need to know all the current rules to play in a tournament. That's the mindset that's scaring people away from FW. Again, this isn't that complex of a game. You don't need to know everything about every unit you might potentially encounter in order to play and have fun (and even win). There's nothing out there that's going to be so surprising that simply talking to your opponent at the beginning of the game won't address. Six questions: "What is that? What is it's statline? How does it move? What does it shoot and what's it's range? What does it do in assault? Does it have any special rules?" As long as they have whatever version of the rules they're using, you can play a game with them.
I agree that you don't need to know all of the units to play the game. I agree that it's not that complex. I agree that all of your questions are good ones to ask and will let you know how to play against that unit.
However, you are not addressing my point so I'll say it again. For the 3rd time: If the TO isn't familiar with the current rules, how is he going to prevent someone from bringing the old rules. This is not 4th edition codex Space Marine codex versus 5th Edition codex sort of thing. This is a Unit A from book B is superseded by Unit A in Book C sort of thing. Again, look at the back and forth 5 or 6 pages ago concerning the Lucious Pattern Drop Pod. The guy thought he was in the right, despite it no longer being BA allowed, or having it's points increased, or taking up a FO slot, or forcing dangerous terrain.
If the TO doesn't have the books or some other resource, this will happen and players will feel cheated. All I am saying, AGAIN, is that the TO had better be up on what's the most recent rules/version of each units, and players should either do the same, or not care if their opponent is using the wrong version (always an option), or just not bother (also, always an option).
As I've said this multiple times and am not getting honest replies to it, I'm out of this conversation. Enjoy.
465
Post by: Redbeard
kronk wrote:
However, you are not addressing my point so I'll say it again. For the 3rd time: If the TO isn't familiar with the current rules, how is he going to prevent someone from bringing the old rules.
I did address that point. I agreed with you:
Redbeard wrote: kronk wrote:The points I am making is that a TO needs to take it upon himself to know what rules are current to avoid someone cheating or using the wrong version unintentionally.
Agreed.
I also went on to say that I really don't think the game is harmed that much by someone using an older version as long as both players agree that it's what's in the book, but yes, absolutely, TOs should know the rules.
9594
Post by: RiTides
You think it's OK to use an old version, RB? That seems off.
Shenanigans is a good expression  surprised you don't know it!
Muwhe's Adepticon link is ace!
Attacking kronk is a bad idea RB- he's super pro- FW, and making a valid point.
Nobody replied to say what books I need!  Do I honestly need them all dating back to IA1, or will the 3 most recent (what are they?) suffice?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I believe the recent ones will be fine, IIRC they are updates of all the old stuff. And IA1 and IA2 are out of print due to being outdated anyway.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Technically all but IA1 & IA 2 aren't available anymore. I think they are going to be reprinted updated for 6th but right now they don't exist outside of ebay legitimately. In reality, it would depend on what you'd want to know the rules for. The three most recent won't cover some of the ork or eldar stuff. Though I don't currently have an IA Aeronatica (sp?) yet so maybe that has some of the missing units. Naturally characters and such are in their relevent books like Badab 9-10 for a ton of space marine ones.
3933
Post by: Kingsley
Redbeard wrote:Kingsley wrote:
Don't play this sort of game, it only makes you look silly. Everyone knows Games Workshop produced models exist on a different level than Forge World produced models.
No, not everyone knows this. Some of us know that Forgeworld models are GW models. That's the portion of us who are literate.
Stop playing dumb, it got old a long time ago.
Redbeard wrote:Thus, allowing these units unbalances the Flyer metagame element provided by 6th edition
You have once again made the mistake of believing that the metagame is balanced, with or without Forgeworld. Any argument against the inclusion of Forgeworld that uses the word balance is automatically invalid.
And I believe you on this... why? You seem to tout stupid Internethammer memes like Space Wolves being "unfair," so I'm not sure that I trust your opinions on balance.
Peregrine wrote: At most you could argue that the Sabre guns are too good (though mostly because GW changed the artillery rules, the old Sabre platforms were pretty bad), but all of the other AA units are marginal at best if you don't need to plan against flyerspam.
Since Imperial Guard can ally with practically everyone, it only takes one broken unit to throw off the balance for everyone else. If Sabre Platforms and a few other units were banned, I'd be fine with Forge World, but blanket allowing it does more harm than good IMO.
465
Post by: Redbeard
RiTides wrote:You think it's OK to use an old version, RB? That seems off.
Actually, yes, I do. Because it's a game, and oddly enough, the old versions are no better or worse than the new versions.
I ran a tournament last year, I called it the "Retro tournament" - people could use old codexes instead of the most recent, if they wanted. A few did. No one died. Everyone had a good time.
There's a new chaos codex out, right? (or maybe it's tomorrow). Does that mean that all of a sudden, the old chaos codex is unbalanced? That it's going to break the game? How have we survived the four years that it's been out?
With only a few minor exceptions, Codex Creep means that newer stuff is better, cheaper, or some combination of both. Why would anyone have an issue with someone running 9 point orks without furious charge when they could be running six point orks with furious charge? Unless perhaps they were running deathwing and afraid of the old choppa rule...
New codexes (or forgeworld books) aren't so out of place as people seem to want to believe. I have a friend who has an arbites army, built under the old witchhunters codex. The new Sisters codex doesn't really work for that. What's better, what's more legitimate, continuing to use the older codex to run that army, or using a fandex? I'd rather he just keep using the old WH codex, personally.
So, yeah, as long as both players know the rules for what's on the table, I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with using an older version, whether than be an older version of FW books, or an older version of a codex. The game hasn't changed so substantially that these older versions are no longer compatible, so what's the big deal?
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Redbeard wrote:
With only a few minor exceptions, Codex Creep means that newer stuff is better, cheaper, or some combination of both. Why would anyone have an issue with someone running 9 point orks without furious charge when they could be running six point orks with furious charge? Unless perhaps they were running deathwing and afraid of the old choppa rule...
I would pay 9 points for an ork if I had the old choppa rule.
18698
Post by: kronk
Redbeard wrote:
Actually, yes, I do. Because it's a game, and oddly enough, the old versions are no better or worse than the new versions.
95% of the time, this is correct RB. However, there are some units that got hit with the nerf bat as they were pretty darn powerful on their first release. One of them is arguably one of the most likely you'll see in a tournament: Lucious Pattern Drop Pod.
RiTides wrote:
Nobody replied to say what books I need!  Do I honestly need them all dating back to IA1, or will the 3 most recent (what are they?) suffice?
I don't think you need them all. Most FW units will come from Aeronautica, Apocalypse Second Edition, and Apocalypse 2, which contain many non-apocalypse and non-filers, despite their respective names.  You'll also want the Horus Heresy book, I'd imagine. I can't wait to get my greedy little hands on that one! There should be a lot of units that will gain popularity from it. I can't say until I get mine, though.
If someone wants to bring something beyond that, they'll need to bring their book. That Adepticon pdf that someone posted above looks pretty good, now that I've had a chance to flip through it more. As long as your up-to-date with which is the most recent book and you require people to bring their books, you should do fine.  I'm sharing this pdf with my gaming group, for sure.
Edit: Whoops. This doesn't have Aeronautica, obviously. The Caestus Assault Ram was updated in Aeronautica and I don't see the Contemptor Dreadnoughts at all.
464
Post by: muwhe
Nobody replied to say what books I need
Rtides – You just need the ones that have the rules for the models you plan to play. : )
At Chicago Games Day Forgeworld announced they would in addition to the, Horus Hersey book be producing IA:12 (Necrons, Minotaurs and DKoK). They also mentioned they would be revisiting and updating IA1. So the expectation is there will be a single updated book this year to bring the current Imperial stuff together for 6th edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: Whoops. This doesn't have Aeronautica, obviously. The Caestus Assault Ram was updated in Aeronautica and I don't see the Contemptor Dreadnoughts at all.
Kronk,
That document exists as it did for AdeptiCon 2012. So it has yet to account for any new book releases. : )
26742
Post by: Dugg
muwhe wrote:
You have once again made the mistake of believing that the metagame is balanced, with or without Forgeworld. Any argument against the inclusion of Forgeworld that uses the word balance is automatically invalid.
+1 this.
+1 your this and his Automatically Appended Next Post: @ Muwhe - Awesome! I have been wanting a reason to finish up my DKoK.
9594
Post by: RiTides
muwhe- I meant more to read up on the units that are available... given the below, is it true that I can't buy the books direct from FW for all the units that could be fielded? (i.e. I have to go through ebay?)
I think that's reasonable for a few units... but to have to go through ebay for 8 or 9? books of units... that seems a bit excessive!
Hulksmash wrote:Technically all but IA1 & IA 2 aren't available anymore. I think they are going to be reprinted updated for 6th but right now they don't exist outside of ebay legitimately.
In reality, it would depend on what you'd want to know the rules for. The three most recent won't cover some of the ork or eldar stuff. Though I don't currently have an IA Aeronatica (sp?) yet so maybe that has some of the missing units. Naturally characters and such are in their relevent books like Badab 9-10 for a ton of space marine ones.
So... what you said below would obviously be a lot preferable to what seems to be the alternative! If they could just consolidate their rules into at least current books that are still available, that'd be a huge boon towards being able to read up on the rules for at least the majority of the units.
muwhe wrote:At Chicago Games Day Forgeworld announced they would in addition to the, Horus Hersey book be producing IA:12 (Necrons, Minotaurs and DKoK). They also mentioned they would be revisiting and updating IA1. So the expectation is there will be a single updated book this year to bring the current Imperial stuff together for 6th edition.
3933
Post by: Kingsley
Redbeard wrote:So, yeah, as long as both players know the rules for what's on the table, I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with using an older version, whether than be an older version of FW books, or an older version of a codex. The game hasn't changed so substantially that these older versions are no longer compatible, so what's the big deal?
You don't see how having one person field an army and having it be entirely different from another army that uses the exact same models is a problem?
50149
Post by: madfjohn
i would pay 9 points for an ork if I had the old choppa rule.
i wood do the same here my self
465
Post by: Redbeard
Kingsley wrote: Redbeard wrote:So, yeah, as long as both players know the rules for what's on the table, I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with using an older version, whether than be an older version of FW books, or an older version of a codex. The game hasn't changed so substantially that these older versions are no longer compatible, so what's the big deal?
You don't see how having one person field an army and having it be entirely different from another army that uses the exact same models is a problem?
What, you mean like the players who paint their marines generic colours and use them interchangably as space wolves, salamanders, blood angels, and even chaos marines and grey knights? No, I don't notice that having a noticeable detrimental effect on most gamers.
9594
Post by: RiTides
Redbeard, a better example would be using a single unit from an old SW codex, alongside all the new units.
That could create a ton of problems... see below.
madfjohn wrote:
i would pay 9 points for an ork if I had the old choppa rule.
464
Post by: muwhe
@RItides,
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Armour_Books
All but Imperial Armor 1, 2, 3 are available through the Forgeworld website.
Imperial Armour Aeronautica covers pretty much all current FW Flyers and AA units and Imperial Armor Apocalypse 2nd Edition covers off on another wide swath of other units. Both books run 26 sterling or roughly 40.00 USD. Between those two books you would have a pretty good start on the FW units available.
Keep in mind that Imperial Armor 1 and 2 .. are both approaching a decade old. Coming out towards the tail end of 3rd edition / start of 4th. Both have had extensive FAQ support from Forgeworld over the past ten years. So it's time to revisit this material and consolidate the rules.
34060
Post by: Mohoc
muwhe wrote:@RItides,
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Armour_Books
All but Imperial Armor 1, 2, 3 are available through the Forgeworld website.
Imperial Armour Aeronautica covers pretty much all current FW Flyers and AA units and Imperial Armor Apocalypse 2nd Edition covers off on another wide swath of other units. Both books run 26 sterling or roughly 40.00 USD. Between those two books you would have a pretty good start on the FW units available.
Keep in mind that Imperial Armor 1 and 2 .. are both approaching a decade old. Coming out towards the tail end of 3rd edition / start of 4th. Both have had extensive FAQ support from Forgeworld over the past ten years. So it's time to revisit this material and consolidate the rules.
You don't even have to order them from Forgeworld. I just bought Aeronautica at my local GW store.
9594
Post by: RiTides
muwhe wrote:Keep in mind that Imperial Armor 1 and 2 .. are both approaching a decade old. Coming out towards the tail end of 3rd edition / start of 4th. Both have had extensive FAQ support from Forgeworld over the past ten years. So it's time to revisit this material and consolidate the rules.
Thanks for the link/summary, and if they would do the above, that would be great!
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Mohoc wrote:You don't even have to order them from Forgeworld. I just bought Aeronautica at my local GW store.
My "local" GW is at least a 2 hour drive, and doesn't stock any FW anything. If I want to order it, they facilitate the ordering, but I pay shipping. So I gain nothing by using them over just ordering from the Internet myself.
If its a GW product, why am I paying shipping when ordering through a GW store?
36485
Post by: dalsiandon
Kingsley wrote: Redbeard wrote:So, yeah, as long as both players know the rules for what's on the table, I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with using an older version, whether than be an older version of FW books, or an older version of a codex. The game hasn't changed so substantially that these older versions are no longer compatible, so what's the big deal?
You don't see how having one person field an army and having it be entirely different from another army that uses the exact same models is a problem?
I think the issue is not the models but having a mixture of an oop Dex instead of a current Dex for your army with a hodgepodge of models, the larger point is using an oop dex. How do you handle a player who shows up to a game with a Necron Army using 3rd edition dex and the 3rd edition rules while the next guy has Necrons to but is using the current dex and 6th edition rules? I think the answer is obvious in most circumstances.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
This has been a great discussion and shows why things happen often due to misguidance intentionally directed on the Internet. I understand that there are some people who want to use Forgeworld more for fun but I think there are also some people trying to enforce their will. Based on my experience Adepticon handles Forgeworld the best by far...
They have the experience
Their documentation overall to support is very good
Events like the Gladiator are quite reputable
That said and just like anything else some people will want to abuse it. Adepticon has a top staff to facilitate the application of Forgeworld but I don't think you can make that a blanket statement for the majority of events. Maybe one day GW will better integrate it into their core system but at this point in time it's nowhere close to ready.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
I think this is really missing the point. No one's trying to enforce their will, the pro Forgeworld people are simply stating that banning forgeworld is like banning Necrons. There is absolutely no difference at all.
People can obviously run events however they want. There was even an event in Australia (I think last year) that banned Grey Knights. But it's generally accepted that banning a codex is stupid and needless. It needs to be acknowledged that banning forgeworld is equally stupid and needless.
People get all up in arms when this is pointed out to them though, because no one likes to be told they're doing something stupid.
We aren't telling anyone that they all have to allow forgeworld. We're just saying that this thing they're doing is just like this other thing, and this other thing is stupid. So what they're doing is also stupid. They are, of course, free to be stupid.
Please note, I'm not directing this at any particular poster, person, organisation or event. It's just my opinion that banning a codex and banning FW are no different. And that banning a codex is stupid, therefore banning FW is also stupid.
3933
Post by: Kingsley
Kaldor wrote:I think this is really missing the point. No one's trying to enforce their will, the pro Forgeworld people are simply stating that banning forgeworld is like banning Necrons. There is absolutely no difference at all.
Except that Forge World has a long history of being unofficial or opponent's permission only, and Games Workshop itself doesn't consider Forge World to be official or allow it in their events. Please stop with the "Forge World books are just like any other!" myth, it's really getting old fast.
Are there good reasons to allow Forge World? Yes. But "It's totally official guys, seriously!" isn't one of them.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Kingsley wrote:Except that Forge World has a long history of being unofficial or opponent's permission only
So what? You used to be limited to only using one codex, now you can take allies. Obsolete rules from old editions are irrelevant. FW used to require permission years ago, now it doesn't. Welcome to 2012 and 6th edition. Either play the game as the rules state, or admit that you just want to ban stuff you don't like.
and Games Workshop itself doesn't consider Forge World to be official or allow it in their events.
GW considers FW 100% official, as they have explicitly stated in their books.
GW's tournament also only allows 500 points of allies, but I don't see anyone demanding that tournaments stop allowing more than 500 points of allies. Nor did it stop people from complaining about how stupid GW's tournament missions were back when 'ard boyz existed and making better ones. The whole " GW does it this way, so should we" argument only comes out when GW is doing something you already want, so it's absurd to pretend that the tournament community cares about how GW's own events are run.
Are there good reasons to allow Forge World? Yes. But "It's totally official guys, seriously!" isn't one of them.
Why not? They ARE official according to GW's own rules, and "play the game according to the rules" is a pretty good reason.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Kingsley wrote:
Except that Forge World has a long history of being unofficial or opponent's permission only, and Games Workshop itself doesn't consider Forge World to be official
This is patently false as has been shown time and time again. The books say they are official, they appear in GW publications and at their trade events, the products are stamped as Citadel models with GW copyrights produced by GW under a sub-brand. I don't know how much clearer it can be made that these are official Warhammer 40,000 products.
or allow it in their events.
Only at their tournaments, which they run a minority of and there have already been plenty of non-official/non-balance reasons explained why this situation could be (wanting to promote certain sales lines, wanting to keep organizational issues to a minimum, etc). Additionally, Tournaments are not, and have never been in any way the arbiter of "officialdom", and whats more is that the design studio came right out and said this sort of play is not the way they intended the game to be played in the first place, they're marketing events and nothing more.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Peregrine wrote:
GW considers FW 100% official, as they have explicitly stated in their books.
You keep ignoring about half of that paragraph every time it's brought up, but that's not what it says.
And if GW says its 100% official, why do I have to pay shipping when ordering a FW book or model through a GW store? I don't if I'm ordering a SM codex or model.
Perhaps because they aren't as tightly entwined as you've implied?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
rigeld2 wrote:You keep ignoring about half of that paragraph every time it's brought up, but that's not what it says.
That's exactly what it says.
And the other half is irrelevant. It says that you SHOULD make sure your opponent is happy to play against FW models, not that you MUST. All it's really saying is "some people hate FW, you'll avoid arguments if you just don't try to play against them", and it has nothing to do with a tournament environment where the TO will inform everyone that FW rules may be present.
And if GW says its 100% official, why do I have to pay shipping when ordering a FW book or model through a GW store? I don't if I'm ordering a SM codex or model.
Because international shipping from the single warehouse which has the model you're ordering is expensive, and GW would rather charge you for it than make less profit? And anyway, what does the shipping cost have to do with whether something is official rulse-wise or not?
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
rigeld2 wrote:
You keep ignoring about half of that paragraph every time it's brought up, but that's not what it says.
It does point blank say that they are "official".
And if GW says its 100% official, why do I have to pay shipping when ordering a FW book or model through a GW store? I don't if I'm ordering a SM codex or model.
Because it's a different sales channel. That has nothing to do with being official or not.
And when did they start charging shipping? Never had to pay shipping at the few things I picked up at the bunker, though it's been a couple years admittedly.
Perhaps because they aren't as tightly entwined as you've implied?
Being located in the same building, sharing the same parking lot, and having the same copyrights would imply they are.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Kingsley wrote: Kaldor wrote:I think this is really missing the point. No one's trying to enforce their will, the pro Forgeworld people are simply stating that banning forgeworld is like banning Necrons. There is absolutely no difference at all.
Except that Forge World has a long history of being unofficial or opponent's permission only, and Games Workshop itself doesn't consider Forge World to be official or allow it in their events. Please stop with the "Forge World books are just like any other!" myth, it's really getting old fast.
Are there good reasons to allow Forge World? Yes. But "It's totally official guys, seriously!" isn't one of them.
Except it is. The books say they are. There is quite literally a written document from GW saying they are official!.
If that doesn't convince you, then you are a lost cause.
3933
Post by: Kingsley
Kaldor wrote:Except it is. The books say they are. There is quite literally a written document from GW saying they are official!.
If that doesn't convince you, then you are a lost cause.
Forge World can say whatever they want in their own little bubble-- I'm reading my 6th edition rulebook right now, and funnily enough Forge World never gets a mention, even in the hobby section about expansions to the game-- which even includes Black Library novels and 40k expansion books that came out during 4th edition!
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Kingsley wrote:Forge World can say whatever they want in their own little bubble-- I'm reading my 6th edition rulebook right now, and funnily enough Forge World never gets a mention, even in the hobby section about expansions to the game-- which even includes Black Library novels and 40k expansion books that came out during 4th edition!
So what? The "this is official" statement is found in a GW book. It doesn't matter that it isn't repeated in some other GW book, as long as the other GW book doesn't say "this ISN'T official".
(And "in their own little bubble" is just ridiculous. FW is part of GW and they would not be allowed to publish a book saying "this is official" if that wasn't GW's policy.)
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Kingsley wrote:I'm reading my 6th edition rulebook right now, and funnily enough Forge World never gets a mention, even in the hobby section about expansions to the game-- which even includes Black Library novels and 40k expansion books that came out during 4th edition!
If an explicitly worded written statement from GW isn't enough for you, then, well...
3933
Post by: Kingsley
Peregrine wrote:So what? The "this is official" statement is found in a GW book. It doesn't matter that it isn't repeated in some other GW book, as long as the other GW book doesn't say "this ISN'T official".
(And "in their own little bubble" is just ridiculous. FW is part of GW and they would not be allowed to publish a book saying "this is official" if that wasn't GW's policy.)
Until GW itself-- not FW, no matter how "official" they say they are or aren't-- says FW is official, it isn't. There's a reason GW doesn't mention FW stuff in their rulebook and doesn't allow it at their events, and pretending there isn't is growing very tedious.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Kingsley wrote:Until GW itself-- not FW, no matter how "official" they say they are or aren't-- says FW is official, it isn't. There's a reason GW doesn't mention FW stuff in their rulebook and doesn't allow it at their events, and pretending there isn't is growing very tedious.
You know what else is tedious? People like you pretending you know better than GW about what GW products GW has decided are official in GW's game. The fact that GW hasn't published the exact statement you demand doesn't change the fact that they have answered the question. At this point it's pretty obvious that you're just flailing around for any evidence you can find to keep the hated FW rules out of your game.
Also, haven't we covered the " GW's events" argument enough? We don't argue that allies should be capped at 500 points because GW's tournament does it that way, we didn't argue that we should use all the endlessly criticized 'ard boyz missions because GW's tournament does it that way, and we certainly haven't let respect for the way GW does things stop us from complaining about soft scores and every other thing GW does wrong. So why is "how GW's tournament does it" suddenly the community standard in the case of FW?
3933
Post by: Kingsley
Peregrine wrote: Kingsley wrote:Until GW itself-- not FW, no matter how "official" they say they are or aren't-- says FW is official, it isn't. There's a reason GW doesn't mention FW stuff in their rulebook and doesn't allow it at their events, and pretending there isn't is growing very tedious.
You know what else is tedious? People like you pretending you know better than GW about what GW products GW has decided are official in GW's game. The fact that GW hasn't published the exact statement you demand doesn't change the fact that they have answered the question. At this point it's pretty obvious that you're just flailing around for any evidence you can find to keep the hated FW rules out of your game.
Except, y'know, the part where FW supplements aren't recognized in the 40k rulebook and the rest of them are. Derp.
By the way, I own several Forge World models myself-- I just think Forge World's rules aren't ready for prime time. But in any case, you've boring me now.
*plonk*
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Kingsley wrote:Except, y'know, the part where FW supplements aren't recognized in the 40k rulebook and the rest of them are. Derp.
Could you quote and provide a page number for the statement which says that only rules specifically mentioned in the 6th edition rulebook are allowed? Because until you do, it's very simple:
One source says "these rules are legal".
One source says nothing at all about the subject.
Conclusion: these rules are legal.
3933
Post by: Kingsley
Peregrine wrote: Kingsley wrote:Except, y'know, the part where FW supplements aren't recognized in the 40k rulebook and the rest of them are. Derp.
Could you quote and provide a page number for the statement which says that only rules specifically mentioned in the 6th edition rulebook are allowed? Because until you do, it's very simple:
One source says "these rules are legal".
One source says nothing at all about the subject.
Conclusion: these rules are legal.
"The core rulebook doesn't say it's illegal, so it's legal?" By that standard, my fan Codex (that has "These rules are official, 100% GW approved!" stamped on it) is legal, because the core rulebook doesn't say it's not.
The core rulebook also doesn't say that the old Realms of Chaos: Slaves to Darkness book is illegal, and that book says that it's legal, so I guess you better get ready for my 10 wound, 10 attack Greater Dæmon with a 90% chance of calling for support from d3 other Greater Dæmons!
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Kingsley wrote:"The core rulebook doesn't say it's illegal, so it's legal?" By that standard, my fan Codex (that has "These rules are official, 100% GW approved!" stamped on it) is legal, because the core rulebook doesn't say it's not.
Sure, just as soon as GW publishes your fan codex and therefore validates your claim that it's official.
The core rulebook also doesn't say that the old Realms of Chaos: Slaves to Darkness book is illegal, and that book says that it's legal, so I guess you better get ready for my 10 wound, 10 attack Greater Dæmon with a 90% chance of calling for support from d3 other Greater Dæmons!
Really? Your best comparison is a book that's many editions out of date and completely incompatible with the current rules? I guess I should be happy that you're forced to that level of desperation, but could you stop with the stupid examples?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Peregrine wrote:rigeld2 wrote:You keep ignoring about half of that paragraph every time it's brought up, but that's not what it says.
That's exactly what it says.
And the other half is irrelevant. It says that you SHOULD make sure your opponent is happy to play against FW models, not that you MUST. All it's really saying is "some people hate FW, you'll avoid arguments if you just don't try to play against them", and it has nothing to do with a tournament environment where the TO will inform everyone that FW rules may be present.
So it's exactly what it says, but there's other stuff that you're writing off as irrelevant, but what was obviously what I was pointing out. Okay.
And if GW says its 100% official, why do I have to pay shipping when ordering a FW book or model through a GW store? I don't if I'm ordering a SM codex or model.
Because international shipping from the single warehouse which has the model you're ordering is expensive, and GW would rather charge you for it than make less profit? And anyway, what does the shipping cost have to do with whether something is official rulse-wise or not?
Your standing is that it's 100% gosh darn Gdub and there's no reason to think otherwise. If its still a separate sales channel, still stocked completely separately, still has to be shipped internationally, how 100% GW is it? I don't pay shipping when ordering a normal GW SKU, just the FW ones.
The GW I went to, when I was going to order, just went to the FW website and was filling out the order page for me. If the companies are separate enough that he can't order stock internally, why should I believe your claims that FW rules claims are GW official until GW confirms? Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote: Kingsley wrote:Except, y'know, the part where FW supplements aren't recognized in the 40k rulebook and the rest of them are. Derp.
Could you quote and provide a page number for the statement which says that only rules specifically mentioned in the 6th edition rulebook are allowed? Because until you do, it's very simple:
One source says "these rules are legal".
One source says nothing at all about the subject.
Conclusion: these rules are legal.
The 5th edition book had wording about the rule book and codexes are what you use to play the game. I haven't checked the 6th edition book.
Are the IA books codexes?
2026
Post by: led571
Kingsley wrote: Kaldor wrote:Except it is. The books say they are. There is quite literally a written document from GW saying they are official!.
If that doesn't convince you, then you are a lost cause.
Forge World can say whatever they want in their own little bubble-- I'm reading my 6th edition rulebook right now, and funnily enough Forge World never gets a mention, even in the hobby section about expansions to the game-- which even includes Black Library novels and 40k expansion books that came out during 4th edition!
Forge world have been integrated into the fold you bring the fact it does state in your rule book about them being official yet on page 294 there is a chaos army containing the chaos warhound that the rules didn't come out in a 'standard' gw expansion but a forgeworld one, just because it isn't written down in the rule book doesn't mean its not true, even int the apocalypse pages on 376-377 it is using the reaver titan, the ork mega dread and the ork fighta's so items that are not just apocalypse only.
if they are 'legal' for that game why wouldn't the ork mega dread be legal in a game when the rules state its a heavy support option?
The rule book points to the use of forgeworld in games so it doesn't create a good defense by using it.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
led571 wrote:Forge world have been integrated into the fold you bring the fact it does state in your rule book about them being official yet on page 294 there is a chaos army containing the chaos warhound that the rules didn't come out in a 'standard' gw expansion but a forgeworld one, just because it isn't written down in the rule book doesn't mean its not true, even int the apocalypse pages on 376-377 it is using the reaver titan, the ork mega dread and the ork fighta's so items that are not just apocalypse only.
if they are 'legal' for that game why wouldn't the ork mega dread be legal in a game when the rules state its a heavy support option?
The rule book points to the use of forgeworld in games so it doesn't create a good defense by using it.
Page 294 is nothing more than a two-page spread of painted models, an introduction to the Chaos painted model showcase it would seem, with no other text on it other than "The Great Enemy" at the top. How in the unholy feth you interpreted this as " FW being integrated into the fold" is beyond me, because these pages are literally "Look at the pretty models!" and nothing else. There are two titans marching behind a horde of Chaos guys because it looks cool, not because GW wants you to bring two Chaos warhounds with you to every game and tournament you play in.
Pages 376-377 are about Apocalypse, and show an Apocalypse game being played. Literally everything is legal in Apocalypse, I do believe that was the entire point of that expansion, that's why you see both regular and FW models being used. Not really sure what the point was supposed to be here but considering everything about these two pages is Apocalypse I don't really see how it's at all relevant to the discussion of what's legal in "normal" games.
53851
Post by: Erik_Morkai
If you read the disclaimer at the beginning of the books you will realize it says that: words, pictures, rules are property of GW.
This means that the rules PUBLISHED by FW are PROPERTY of GW.
A bit later it says the rules are to be considered "Official". Now this is not FW saying they are official. It is FW saying they are official on GW's behalf and with their approval.
How much more official do you want?
Given the fact that GW has little hesitation to go after people or companies who infringes on any of their IP. Do you HONESTLY think they would let someone publish official rules and let them operate for years without approving it?
Do you HONESTLY think that GW does not know what FW does and publishes?
Some people are just lost causes when it comes to reason and logic.
If you want to ban FW in your tournament, fine. But be honest about the reason:
"It's not official" is not one of them. It has been proven, in many ways.
"Balance" in an unbalanced game is not a very good one either.
"Not many people know the rules", well when a new codex comes out not many people know the rules either. The codex is not banned why would FW?
Main reason I think is fear. Plain and simple fear.
Fear of having the meta upset and a few netlist become obsolete.
My group allows FW. Not everyone uses it but everyone accepts it.
Refusing to play against FW is seen as forfeit.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
A GW book that says it. "It is a GW book!" No, it's not. It's a FW book that GW publishes. They're separate companies with separate supply chains and separate everything. Forgeworld is saying Forgeworld is official. edit: And even then they throw in a caveat.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
Erik_Morkai wrote:Given the fact that GW has little hesitation to go after people or companies who infringes on any of their IP. Do you HONESTLY think they would let someone publish official rules and let them operate for years without approving it?
Do you HONESTLY think that GW does not know what FW does and publishes?
Some people are just lost causes when it comes to reason and logic.
I think it's fething hilarious that you honestly believe that this is what we believe: that FW is just a third party model/bits producer like Chapterhouse that somehow flew under GW's radar for a decade or more, despite getting pimped in every single White Dwarf, at their Games Days, etc.
Go on, beat the gak out of that straw man, show him who's boss.
rigeld2 wrote:
A GW book that says it.
"It is a GW book!" No, it's not. It's a FW book that GW publishes. They're separate companies with separate supply chains and separate everything.
Forgeworld is saying Forgeworld is official.
edit: And even then they throw in a caveat.
A caveat which is somehow "irrelevant".
And on the note of "separate everything" that includes a separate design team that works independently of the main studio. GW putting their logo on FW publications and models doesn't change the fact that you have a different batch of sculptors working on them, and a different batch of designers writing the rules.
So what's the fething idea here exactly? GW and FW are the same, but they're different? If FW really had GW's full support then why keep everything separate? Why do GW always act so wishy-washy about FW and refuse to say anything one way or the other? That's what's so amusing about this whole fething argument, GW could really put a stop to it easily if they wanted to, but they don't. Even their inaction could be interpreted one of several different ways: the pro- FW crowd would obviously claim that they don't "need" to say anything as they already did in the FW books themselves, and personally I view it as GW purposely distancing themselves from FW, maybe simply out of fear that making a decision one way or the other would ultimately hurt sales, so they deliberately stay out of the debate and let the nerds fight amongst themselves, as long as they keep spending money it's a win for them.
466
Post by: skkipper
Kingsley wrote:
"The core rulebook doesn't say it's illegal, so it's legal?" By that standard, my fan Codex (that has "These rules are official, 100% GW approved!" stamped on it) is legal, because the core rulebook doesn't say it's not.
The core rulebook also doesn't say that the old Realms of Chaos: Slaves to Darkness book is illegal, and that book says that it's legal, so I guess you better get ready for my 10 wound, 10 attack Greater Dæmon with a 90% chance of calling for support from d3 other Greater Dæmons!
The greater demon from the slaves to darkness book was also 1250 points and suffered from instability. a champ 8 berzerkers and a greater demon would be your list and half the time you couldn't take a greater demon. since the realms of chaos list would need to be generated before each game. the two hour tourney time would get wasted as you rolled up your chaos list you could take.
465
Post by: Redbeard
Sidstyler wrote:
And on the note of "separate everything" that includes a separate design team that works independently of the main studio. GW putting their logo on FW publications and models doesn't change the fact that you have a different batch of sculptors working on them, and a different batch of designers writing the rules.
Just to inject some truth here, the sculptors are not always different. Juan Diaz, Brian Nelson, Trish Carden, and several other GW sculptors all have FW credits. They work in the same building even.
You're being willfully ignorant if you don't believe that there is interchange of ideas and talent between the two working groups.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
If you think allowing FW will be the death of "netlists" then you're wrong. All it means is there will be new netlists that utilize the most broken/efficient FW units instead.
Redbeard wrote: Sidstyler wrote:
And on the note of "separate everything" that includes a separate design team that works independently of the main studio. GW putting their logo on FW publications and models doesn't change the fact that you have a different batch of sculptors working on them, and a different batch of designers writing the rules.
Just to inject some truth here, the sculptors are not always different. Juan Diaz, Brian Nelson, Trish Carden, and several other GW sculptors all have FW credits. They work in the same building even.
You're being willfully ignorant if you don't believe that there is interchange of ideas and talent between the two working groups.
And yet FW themselves supposedly came out and said at the open day this year that they "have very few links with the main design studio". Supposedly they knew nothing of 6th edition or how they would integrate their stuff with the new rules at the time.
Some interchange of ideas and talent I'm willing to accept, but apparently not a lot, and especially when it comes to the rules.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
rigeld2 wrote:
A GW book that says it.
"It is a GW book!" No, it's not. It's a FW book that GW publishes. They're separate companies with separate supply chains and separate everything.
Forgeworld is saying Forgeworld is official.
edit: And even then they throw in a caveat.
© Copyright Games Workshop Limited 2011, Games Workshop, the Games Workshop logo, GW, 40k, Citadel and the Citadel Device, Warhammer, Warhammer 40,000, the Warhammer 40,000 logo, the Aquila logo, Forge World and the Forge World logo, Imperial Armour, and all associated marks, logos, devices, names, characters, illustrations and images from the Warhammer 40,000 universe are ®, TM and/or © Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2011, where applicable registered in the UK and other countries around the world. All Rights Reserved.
How much more obvious does it get?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
AlmightyWalrus wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
A GW book that says it.
"It is a GW book!" No, it's not. It's a FW book that GW publishes. They're separate companies with separate supply chains and separate everything.
Forgeworld is saying Forgeworld is official.
edit: And even then they throw in a caveat.
© Copyright Games Workshop Limited 2011, Games Workshop, the Games Workshop logo, GW, 40k, Citadel and the Citadel Device, Warhammer, Warhammer 40,000, the Warhammer 40,000 logo, the Aquila logo, Forge World and the Forge World logo, Imperial Armour, and all associated marks, logos, devices, names, characters, illustrations and images from the Warhammer 40,000 universe are ®, TM and/or © Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2011, where applicable registered in the UK and other countries around the world. All Rights Reserved.
How much more obvious does it get?
I bolded the part that you obviously missed.
Yes, they're the parent company. That doesn't mean that the child absolutely speaks for the parent.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
rigeld2 wrote:Yes, they're the parent company. That doesn't mean that the child absolutely speaks for the parent.
"Some people are just lost causes when it comes to reason and logic."
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Sidstyler wrote:rigeld2 wrote:Yes, they're the parent company. That doesn't mean that the child absolutely speaks for the parent.
"Some people are just lost causes when it comes to reason and logic."
Yeah, I'm completely illogical. Except not.
I've shown that they're separate companies when it comes to stocking and ordering. Some people are taking the fact that GW is the publisher for FW books and making the leap that everything FW prints is 100% GW gospel official. They aren't the same company, no matter how much I get insulted for saying so.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Kingsley wrote:
Until GW itself-- not FW, no matter how "official" they say they are or aren't-- says FW is official, it isn't.
Says you. GW says otherwise. FW books are GW publications written by GW employees with GW copyrights written at GW corporate HQ withe explicit statements saying "yes, we're official".
At this point you're just covering your ears and saying "lalalalala can't hear you".
There's a reason GW doesn't mention FW stuff in their rulebook and doesn't allow it at their events
Yes, but not necessarily because it's not "official". There have been plenty of reasons elaborated as to why.
and pretending there isn't is growing very tedious.
Only because you're telling yourself that and aren't going to change your mind no matter what you're presented with.
rigeld2 wrote:
A GW book that says it.
"It is a GW book!" No, it's not. It's a FW book that GW publishes. They're separate companies with separate supply chains and separate everything.
Forgeworld is saying Forgeworld is official.
edit: And even then they throw in a caveat.
Methinks you are confused as to what exactly FW is. FW is not a distinct company, it's not even a subsidiary. It's an internal GW department just like IT, the Design Studio, or anything else. It's nothing more than Games Workshop *doing business as* Forgeworld. It's a fairly common practice. They are not completely separate companies, disabuse yourself of that notion now. They are located at the same building as the rest of GW, use GW email and phone systems, park in the same parking lot, and have their paychecks cut by the accounting office as Phil Kelly and Mat Ward and Jeremy Vetock and Robbin Cruddace do.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
rigeld2 wrote: Sidstyler wrote:rigeld2 wrote:Yes, they're the parent company. That doesn't mean that the child absolutely speaks for the parent.
"Some people are just lost causes when it comes to reason and logic."
Yeah, I'm completely illogical. Except not.
I've shown that they're separate companies when it comes to stocking and ordering. Some people are taking the fact that GW is the publisher for FW books and making the leap that everything FW prints is 100% GW gospel official. They aren't the same company, no matter how much I get insulted for saying so.
Well I was actually agreeing with you, lol. Sorry.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
rigeld2 wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
A GW book that says it.
"It is a GW book!" No, it's not. It's a FW book that GW publishes. They're separate companies with separate supply chains and separate everything.
Forgeworld is saying Forgeworld is official.
edit: And even then they throw in a caveat.
© Copyright Games Workshop Limited 2011, Games Workshop, the Games Workshop logo, GW, 40k, Citadel and the Citadel Device, Warhammer, Warhammer 40,000, the Warhammer 40,000 logo, the Aquila logo, Forge World and the Forge World logo, Imperial Armour, and all associated marks, logos, devices, names, characters, illustrations and images from the Warhammer 40,000 universe are ®, TM and/or © Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2011, where applicable registered in the UK and other countries around the world. All Rights Reserved.
How much more obvious does it get?
I bolded the part that you obviously missed.
Yes, they're the parent company. That doesn't mean that the child absolutely speaks for the parent.
Everything in the book is Copyright Games Workshop. Games Workshop is publishing a book that says the 40k units in it are official.
A bit further up on that page we can read the following: First published in Great Britain in 2011 by Forge World, Games Workshop, Willow Road, Lenton, Nottingham, NG7 2WS. If the book in question is © Games Workshop, is published by Games Workshop and even has the Games Workshop logo on it, I'd assume that it's a Games Workshop product, no? If the parent company didn't stand for everything in the book, why would they print it in the first place?
42370
Post by: Rampage
I'm still on the fence about the inclusion of Forge World but I'm just going to bring this point up again as I don't feel that it has been fully answered yet. Please don't take me for arguing against the inclusion of Forge World, I'd just like to see a valid answer for this.
If Forge World is so official, then why does GW not allow it in their own tournaments?
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Rampage wrote:I'm still on the fence about the inclusion of Forge World but I'm just going to bring this point up again as I don't feel that it has been fully answered yet. Please don't take me for arguing against the inclusion of Forge World, I'd just like to see a valid answer for this.
If Forge World is so official, then why does GW not allow it at their own tournaments?
It's been up like 5 times the last 5 pages; they don't allow more than 500 points in allies either. They don't follow their own rules.
465
Post by: Redbeard
Sidstyler wrote:
And yet FW themselves supposedly came out and said at the open day this year that they "have very few links with the main design studio". Supposedly they knew nothing of 6th edition or how they would integrate their stuff with the new rules at the time.
And yet they had a full colour book ready to go within two months of the release of 6th ed, full of 6th ed rules for their flyers. This sounds like the sort of thing that would require foreknowledge of both the rules, and how they'd integrate. Almost as if they had worked with the people at the same company, in the same building.
Denial of the obvious is not a very successful tactic. There are some legitimate concerns about including Forgeworld in tournaments. The officiality of FW models is not one of them.
42370
Post by: Rampage
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Rampage wrote:I'm still on the fence about the inclusion of Forge World but I'm just going to bring this point up again as I don't feel that it has been fully answered yet. Please don't take me for arguing against the inclusion of Forge World, I'd just like to see a valid answer for this.
If Forge World is so official, then why does GW not allow it at their own tournaments?
It's been up like 5 times the last 5 pages; they don't allow more than 500 points in allies either. They don't follow their own rules.
I know, I put it there a couple of times. I don't think I've seen that point mentioned before though, and I would say that's a valid point. If that point has been mentioned before then I must have missed it, I'll drop that question now.
18698
Post by: kronk
Redbeard wrote: And yet they had a full colour book ready to go within two months of the release of 6th ed, full of 6th ed rules for their flyers. This sounds like the sort of thing that would require foreknowledge of both the rules, and how they'd integrate. Almost as if they had worked with the people at the same company, in the same building. FW also had their FAQ's out within 2 weeks of 6th edition. Again, something you can't do if you don't have access to them for some time. Saying GW and FW don't know what the other is doing is a weak argument for not allowing FW in tournaments. There are better angles to take...
47462
Post by: rigeld2
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Everything in the book is Copyright Games Workshop. Games Workshop is publishing a book that says the 40k units in it are official.
A bit further up on that page we can read the following: First published in Great Britain in 2011 by Forge World, Games Workshop, Willow Road, Lenton, Nottingham, NG7 2WS. If the book in question is © Games Workshop, is published by Games Workshop and even has the Games Workshop logo on it, I'd assume that it's a Games Workshop product, no? If the parent company didn't stand for everything in the book, why would they print it in the first place?
No, I wouldn't assume that. Can you go to games-workshop.com and buy it?
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1160002 That's the only Apocalypse book on GW's site.
It's copyright GW, etc. because GW owns all the copyrights that FW uses - FW just licenses the rights. Is the Dawn of War series of video games a GW product?
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War -- Copyright © Games Workshop Limited 2008. ( http://www.dawnofwargame.com/uk/home/agegate)
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
Redbeard wrote:There are some legitimate concerns about including Forgeworld in tournaments. The officiality of FW models is not one of them.
I'd like to know what counts as a legitimate concern then, since everything I've seen brought up so far has just been immediately written off.
466
Post by: skkipper
1. yes a list of units and where the rules are would need to be crafted. it is more work for a TO.
2.what forgeworld units are broken?
I prefer if FW units are allowed since i have several units i would like to bring but it should be TO's choice since it is more work for him.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
rigeld2 wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:Everything in the book is Copyright Games Workshop. Games Workshop is publishing a book that says the 40k units in it are official.
A bit further up on that page we can read the following: First published in Great Britain in 2011 by Forge World, Games Workshop, Willow Road, Lenton, Nottingham, NG7 2WS. If the book in question is © Games Workshop, is published by Games Workshop and even has the Games Workshop logo on it, I'd assume that it's a Games Workshop product, no? If the parent company didn't stand for everything in the book, why would they print it in the first place?
No, I wouldn't assume that. Can you go to games-workshop.com and buy it?
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1160002 That's the only Apocalypse book on GW's site.
It's copyright GW, etc. because GW owns all the copyrights that FW uses - FW just licenses the rights. Is the Dawn of War series of video games a GW product?
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War -- Copyright © Games Workshop Limited 2008. ( http://www.dawnofwargame.com/uk/home/agegate)
You're still under this weird assumption for whatever reason that FW is it's own company...it's not.
It's Games Workshop DBA Forgeworld. Nothing is being licensed, it's all GW, the people who work at Forgeworld are GW employees working in a GW department simply doing business under a different name for market differentiation.
18698
Post by: kronk
Vaktathi wrote:You're still under this weird assumption for whatever reason that FW is it's own company...it's not.
I don't believe that anyone honestly believes that. It's being obtuse in the base case, or intentionally trolling in the worst case.
I don't have time for such boorish behavior. You should ignore anyone that says such things.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Vaktathi wrote:rigeld2 wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:Everything in the book is Copyright Games Workshop. Games Workshop is publishing a book that says the 40k units in it are official. A bit further up on that page we can read the following: First published in Great Britain in 2011 by Forge World, Games Workshop, Willow Road, Lenton, Nottingham, NG7 2WS. If the book in question is © Games Workshop, is published by Games Workshop and even has the Games Workshop logo on it, I'd assume that it's a Games Workshop product, no? If the parent company didn't stand for everything in the book, why would they print it in the first place?
No, I wouldn't assume that. Can you go to games-workshop.com and buy it? http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1160002 That's the only Apocalypse book on GW's site. It's copyright GW, etc. because GW owns all the copyrights that FW uses - FW just licenses the rights. Is the Dawn of War series of video games a GW product? Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War -- Copyright © Games Workshop Limited 2008. ( http://www.dawnofwargame.com/uk/home/agegate)
You're still under this weird assumption for whatever reason that FW is it's own company...it's not. It's Games Workshop DBA Forgeworld. Nothing is being licensed, it's all GW, the people who work at Forgeworld are GW employees working in a GW department simply doing business under a different name for market differentiation.
With a different supply chain and lots of other differences... edit: Also, I was being told that the GW copyright is what makes it a GW book. I've shown that the GW copyright is on the DoW games and therefore is not alone evidence that it is a GW book. And everywhere I've seen has Forgeworld being a separate company - where do you see that they're DBA? (I could be completely blind) And no kronk, I'm not being obtuse nor trolling. Go ahead and keep insulting me though - it's cool.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
rigeld2 wrote:
With a different supply chain and lots of other differences...
Which doesn't mean it isn't official Warhammer 40,000 product, it just means that it's done through different channels.
edit: Also, I was being told that the GW copyright is what makes it a GW book. I've shown that the GW copyright is on the DoW games and therefore is not alone evidence that it is a GW book.
And everywhere I've seen has Forgeworld being a separate company - where do you see that they're DBA? (I could be completely blind)
DBA is Doing Business As, when a company operates or performs some functions under a different name. My company does something similar we have software we sell under another name that integrates with our primary programs because under it's original name it didn't do as well because people didn't associate the brand name with that type of software and didn't trust it initially, however when they call in for support, deployment or training it all goes to the same place.
FW's offices are located at GW's headquarters, they operate mostly autonomously, but they're still all GW employees at a GW building and paid by GW selling GW products.
18698
Post by: kronk
Vaktathi wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
With a different supply chain and lots of other differences...
Which doesn't mean it isn't official Warhammer 40,000 product, it just means that it's done through different channels.
My company has plants in 15 states. Very few buy raw materials from the same manufacturing plant or even venders. Even fewer share common delivery companies or methods.
Try again.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Yep. The source code for the game, however, is © THQ.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Vaktathi wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
With a different supply chain and lots of other differences...
Which doesn't mean it isn't official Warhammer 40,000 product, it just means that it's done through different channels.
edit: Also, I was being told that the GW copyright is what makes it a GW book. I've shown that the GW copyright is on the DoW games and therefore is not alone evidence that it is a GW book.
And everywhere I've seen has Forgeworld being a separate company - where do you see that they're DBA? (I could be completely blind)
DBA is Doing Business As, when a company operates or performs some functions under a different name. My company does something similar we have software we sell under another name that integrates with our primary programs because under it's original name it didn't do as well because people didn't associate the brand name with that type of software and didn't trust it initially, however when they call in for support, deployment or training it all goes to the same place.
FW's offices are located at GW's headquarters, they operate mostly autonomously, but they're still all GW employees at a GW building and paid by GW selling GW products.
I'm aware of what DBA means. The FW wiki page says they're a separate company (not that I trust wikipedia to be 100% correct... or even 10%) and I seem to remember them starting as a separate company way back when. I can't find much else either way.
2 companies sharing the same building and employees isn't unheard of, especially when one owns the other. I used to work for a company that did that. Automatically Appended Next Post:
So... You're saying that DoW is a GW product. Cool story bro.
465
Post by: Redbeard
Sidstyler wrote:I'd like to know what counts as a legitimate concern then, since everything I've seen brought up so far has just been immediately written off.
Legitimate concerns about including FW at a tournament:
1) You're concerned that it will cause a drop in attendance.
Yeah, that's it.
Anything to do with Balance, Legitimacy, Officialness, Model Availability, Rules Knowledge, Finding the Rules, etc. - they're all just BS excuses by people who would rather live in fear of what might happen than try something that ends up being fun. They're all easily addressed. The only reason not to allow FW at a tournament is because you think too many people lost their big boy pants and would be scared to go to the event if it was allowed. And, while that's a legitimate concern, it's really only playing into that fear.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Redbeard wrote:they're all just BS excuses by people who would rather live in fear of what might happen than try something that ends up being fun. They're all easily addressed. The only reason not to allow FW at a tournament is because you think too many people lost their big boy pants and would be scared to go to the event if it was allowed.
Please stop with that kind of assertion. It's hardly fair nor warranted.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I agree with Redbeard in principle. When it really comes down to it, everyone has the same access to FW rules and products as they do to anything else GW sells. If you can afford to play 40k, you can afford to pay a little more for some extra rules. Especially since GW stores actually carry IA books and can direct order FW models.
So really it comes down to the TO worrying how allowing FW will effect attendence. Because people have preconcieved notions about FW, good and bad.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Let's ratchet down the pitch here, gents. Toy soldiers are toy soldiers whether of overpriced plastic or overpriced and slightly-less-accessible resin. Thanks.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
rigeld2 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
So... You're saying that DoW is a GW product. Cool story bro.
It is. The source code, however, isn't.
465
Post by: Redbeard
rigeld2 wrote: Redbeard wrote:they're all just BS excuses by people who would rather live in fear of what might happen than try something that ends up being fun. They're all easily addressed. The only reason not to allow FW at a tournament is because you think too many people lost their big boy pants and would be scared to go to the event if it was allowed.
Please stop with that kind of assertion. It's hardly fair nor warranted.
It is both fair and warranted.
I do not believe that anyone can honestly tell me, outside the scope of trying to win an argument on the internet, that they actually believe that FW models are not legal in games of 40k, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. This is the sort of thing that if someone tried to tell me this in person, they'd be unable to look me in the eye. They'd be sheepishly staring at their feet, while I'd have the book open in front of me with the text that says it's legal.
I do not believe that anyone honestly believes that GW games are balanced, that they're the epitome of competitiveness. Certainly not after 6th ed was released.
These are simply not positions that would be taken by any reasonable person. So, why do people keep taking these positions?
To try and persuade Tournament Organizers not to include FW in their events.
Why? What's the real underlying motive here. It's not to preserve the sanctity of the competitive game. It's not to preserve the aesthetic appeal of the games. Why do a set of people want to tell other people that they can't play with some of their toy soldiers?
It's either envy, or it's fear. Envy that maybe someone can't afford the FW book/model themselves, so no one else should be able to use them. And I'd almost believe that, if it wasn't that the rest of the game was also expensive. The opportunity cost for buying (non-apocalylpse) FW is not that much. To add a handful of FW items to an army instead of GW models is a less expensive upgrade than buying resin bases. (And, I acknowledge, not everyone buys resin bases... and some people make do with what models they can get ahold of on the cheap. But there's plenty of GW models (and armies) that those people also have to do without. - $74 for the new Chaos Flier....)
So I'm not really digging the envy explanation, which leaves fear, and that one makes a lot of sense. It's change. Most people deal poorly with change. People have written books about handling change (See: Who Moved My Cheese). You spent money on an army. Some FW model does bad things to your army. Now you have to contend with that being in the game. Fear. Someone might bring a unit that you haven't seen before, you might need to adjust on the fly. What if you can't? Fear. It's unknown, the unknown is always scary. You might play Xenos. Someone else (Imperials) may get more than you. You'll be weaker by comparison, you might lose more games... Fear.
It's not an unfair or unwarranted explanation of what's going on. What's unfair and unreasonable is that people wish to force their fears onto others, to keep FW out of events so that they don't have to change their armies to deal with the change. But Change is part of the GW game. Rules change, codexes change, and armies change with them. It's not that bad.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
rigeld2 wrote:
I'm aware of what DBA means. The FW wiki page says they're a separate company (not that I trust wikipedia to be 100% correct... or even 10%) and I seem to remember them starting as a separate company way back when. I can't find much else either way. FW's own Frequently Asked Questions section on their website addresses this, it is asked "Is Forge World part of Games Workshop?" and their answer is "Yes, we just do our own things".
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Funny you should bring that book up Redbeard. Its a reading assignment I just got in my sales class.
3933
Post by: Kingsley
Redbeard wrote:I do not believe that anyone can honestly tell me, outside the scope of trying to win an argument on the internet, that they actually believe that FW models are not legal in games of 40k, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. This is the sort of thing that if someone tried to tell me this in person, they'd be unable to look me in the eye. They'd be sheepishly staring at their feet, while I'd have the book open in front of me with the text that says it's legal.
I own multiple Forge World models and do not consider Forge World legal in standard games of 40k. They are not listed as legal in the main rulebook. They are not allowed in GW events. They have a history of being "opponent's permission" only. Until the GW design studio itself ( not FW) comes out and says that Forge World rules are acceptable in standard 40k, I do not consider Forge World legal.
Redbeard wrote:I do not believe that anyone honestly believes that GW games are balanced, that they're the epitome of competitiveness. Certainly not after 6th ed was released.
I have played in many tournaments of both 5th and 6th edition-- I think 6th edition is more balanced than 5th edition and that people who think it isn't are failing to adapt.
Redbeard wrote:It's not an unfair or unwarranted explanation of what's going on. What's unfair and unreasonable is that people wish to force their fears onto others, to keep FW out of events so that they don't have to change their armies to deal with the change. But Change is part of the GW game. Rules change, codexes change, and armies change with them. It's not that bad.
I think the change brought by allowing Forge World eliminates or diminishes much of the interesting change brought on by 6th edition itself, most notably flyers.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Vaktathi wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
I'm aware of what DBA means. The FW wiki page says they're a separate company (not that I trust wikipedia to be 100% correct... or even 10%) and I seem to remember them starting as a separate company way back when. I can't find much else either way. FW's own Frequently Asked Questions section on their website addresses this, it is asked "Is Forge World part of Games Workshop?" and their answer is "Yes, we just do our own things".
That doesn't mean they aren't a separate company. The rest of that answer, however, tells me why I was remembering that:
"We are not connected with the US company that used the same name many years back for production of resin Warhammer 40,000 vehicles under licence."
So thanks for pointing it out.
26742
Post by: Dugg
For those of you reading this that have not read one of the newer Imperial Armour books below are 2 images from the book IA: Aeronautica page 2 & IA: Aeronautica page4
Link to “FORGE WORLD IMPERIAL ARMOUR SIXTH EDITION VEHICLE UPDATES” <-actual Title of Document
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/v/vehicle6thupdates.pdf
So back to the point of this Thread, it is up to the TOs to decide if they want to restrict FW from their Tournaments. They do need to understand though, that they are restricting legal units and it is the same as choosing to restrict All Named Characters, limiting the points of Allies or restricting the number of Flyers a Player can field. All of these are within the TOs rights and it is also up to the Players to decide if they want to go to a Tournament with or without these restrictions.
Like I posted earlier I’m for FW (ie No Restricted Units) for Tournaments. I have played in a few now and I have had a BLAST in all of them, both using some FW and Playing against FW units.
*Personal Note - “Don’t be a hater, let my friends and I play with our TOYS.”
** read my prior post on here for more on my views on this subject
2
53116
Post by: helium42
Redbeard wrote:Sidstyler wrote:I'd like to know what counts as a legitimate concern then, since everything I've seen brought up so far has just been immediately written off.
Legitimate concerns about including FW at a tournament:
1) You're concerned that it will cause a drop in attendance.
Yeah, that's it.
Anything to do with Balance, Legitimacy, Officialness, Model Availability, Rules Knowledge, Finding the Rules, etc. - they're all just BS excuses by people who would rather live in fear of what might happen than try something that ends up being fun. They're all easily addressed. The only reason not to allow FW at a tournament is because you think too many people lost their big boy pants and would be scared to go to the event if it was allowed. And, while that's a legitimate concern, it's really only playing into that fear.
A tournament organizer must consider his potential players and what they expect. If players in an area play games with FW models often then he might lean toward including FW models in the tournament. If the players don't use FW models often then it's a good idea to exclude them from the tournament. It isn't about being afraid of maybe having fun, which is a silly and assertion and sad passive aggressive jab at those against, but it is about catering to the meta.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Redbeard wrote:I do not believe that anyone can honestly tell me, outside the scope of trying to win an argument on the internet, that they actually believe that FW models are not legal in games of 40k, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. This is the sort of thing that if someone tried to tell me this in person, they'd be unable to look me in the eye. They'd be sheepishly staring at their feet, while I'd have the book open in front of me with the text that says it's legal.
It'd be great if your side wouldn't ignore half of that paragraph every single time. Thanks.
It's not an unfair or unwarranted explanation of what's going on. What's unfair and unreasonable is that people wish to force their fears onto others, to keep FW out of events so that they don't have to change their armies to deal with the change. But Change is part of the GW game. Rules change, codexes change, and armies change with them. It's not that bad.
Its not an unfair potential explanation.
It's an unwarranted and unfair assertion that anyone who disagrees with you must have "lost their big boy pants"
Yes, I guess when it comes down to it, I dislike allowing Forgeworld because of unit envy. Nids get Stonecrusher Carnifexes (yay?), Malanthropes (yay?) and ... what else really? Am I missing a really useful unit?
Between allies and native units every other codex gets access to at least a dozen new useful units.
Ultimately I don't care one way or the other, I'll just end up griping.
53116
Post by: helium42
Dugg wrote:For those of you reading this that have not read one of the newer Imperial Armour books below are 2 images from the book IA: Aeronautica page 2 & IA: Aeronautica page4
Link to “FORGE WORLD IMPERIAL ARMOUR SIXTH EDITION VEHICLE UPDATES” <-actual Title of Document
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/v/vehicle6thupdates.pdf
So back to the point of this Thread, it is up to the TOs to decide if they want to restrict FW from their Tournaments. They do need to understand though, that they are restricting legal units and it is the same as choosing to restrict All Named Characters, limiting the points of Allies or restricting the number of Flyers a Player can field. All of these are within the TOs rights and it is also up to the Players to decide if they want to go to a Tournament with or without these restrictions.
Like I posted earlier I’m for FW (ie No Restricted Units) for Tournaments. I have played in a few now and I have had a BLAST in all of them, both using some FW and Playing against FW units.
*Personal Note - “Don’t be a hater, let my friends and I play with our TOYS.”
** read my prior post on here for more on my views on this subject
I don't put models or rules from FW books on the same level as those from codexes. The part about asking player permission to use them pretty much sums up why. Nobody is telling you and your friend not to play with your toys, or trying to keep you from organizing events with FW included. But at the same time, don't try to force them on others who may not want to use FW rules/models in their games either.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
FYI, for a rules based argument, page 108 of the BRB: BRB page 108 wrote:CODEXES Each of the races or space-born empires in Warhammer 40,000 has a codex - a book that contains rules, background and collecting information for that army. Within the pages of each codex, you'll find everything you need to know about that faction. An important part of this is the army list,which will let you transform your collection of Citadel miniatures into a Warhammer40,000 army.
Are the IA books codexes?
26742
Post by: Dugg
helium42 wrote: Dugg wrote:For those of you reading this that have not read one of the newer Imperial Armour books below are 2 images from the book IA: Aeronautica page 2 & IA: Aeronautica page4
Link to “FORGE WORLD IMPERIAL ARMOUR SIXTH EDITION VEHICLE UPDATES” <-actual Title of Document
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/v/vehicle6thupdates.pdf
So back to the point of this Thread, it is up to the TOs to decide if they want to restrict FW from their Tournaments. They do need to understand though, that they are restricting legal units and it is the same as choosing to restrict All Named Characters, limiting the points of Allies or restricting the number of Flyers a Player can field. All of these are within the TOs rights and it is also up to the Players to decide if they want to go to a Tournament with or without these restrictions.
Like I posted earlier I’m for FW (ie No Restricted Units) for Tournaments. I have played in a few now and I have had a BLAST in all of them, both using some FW and Playing against FW units.
*Personal Note - “Don’t be a hater, let my friends and I play with our TOYS.”
** read my prior post on here for more on my views on this subject
I don't put models or rules from FW books on the same level as those from codexes. The part about asking player permission to use them pretty much sums up why. Nobody is telling you and your friend not to play with your toys, or trying to keep you from organizing events with FW included. But at the same time, don't try to force them on others who may not want to use FW rules/models in their games either.
True! If I'm playing a pickup game and someone doesn't like something in my list or says they don't think they have a way to deal with it I will take it out. Rule#1 "Have Fun!"
47462
Post by: rigeld2
So are there errata changing page 108 of the BRB?
18698
Post by: kronk
Irrelevant conversation, gents. The original post in this thread is should FW be allowed in tournaments. Let me say that again. This thread is about should FW be allowed in tournaments. If the TO says yes, then yes. If the TO says no, then no. That's all there is to it. Done. Vote with your wallets. If you don't want to play with or against FW units, then don't attend that tournament, tell the TO or Store Owner why, and buy your models elsewhere. Vote with your wallets. If you do, attend the tournament, tell the TO or Store Owner you appreciate it, and buy your models there. I don't see much to be gained from continuing this conversation. It's all been said at this point.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Right, no Stormtalons, Ork Bommas or updated Daemons then. They're not in the Codex after all.
465
Post by: Redbeard
rigeld2 wrote:
It'd be great if your side wouldn't ignore half of that paragraph every single time. Thanks.
No one ignored anything. The part that you seem to think we're ignoring doesn't actually say anything about the models being invalid. It says that it's polite to make sure your opponent is happy. That line applies equally to non- FW stuff, as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, I guess when it comes down to it, I dislike allowing Forgeworld because of unit envy. Nids get Stonecrusher Carnifexes (yay?), Malanthropes (yay?) and ... what else really? Am I missing a really useful unit?
Those big spore mines are pretty cool.
Between allies and native units every other codex gets access to at least a dozen new useful units.
Sounds like you're more upset about allies than FW.
Ultimately I don't care one way or the other, I'll just end up griping.
Well, that explains a lot. If you don't care, why are you taking part in the debate? Automatically Appended Next Post: kronk wrote:I don't see much to be gained from continuing this conversation. It's all been said at this point.
I dunno, I still have half-an-hour before I get to leave work. I could repeat it again to pass the time. After that, I'm out, at least until Tuesday
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Right, no Stormtalons, Ork Bommas or updated Daemons then. They're not in the Codex after all. Specifically stated as Official updates to the codexes. Not units that can be used in 40k like Forgeworld. Actual, physical updates to the codex. There is a difference. As a side not I'm cool with forgeworld. All the extra AA means that flyers would go away and my 5th edition armies would be back to performing excellently. Down with flyers and 6th edition
465
Post by: Redbeard
rigeld2 wrote:FYI, for a rules based argument, page 108 of the BRB:
BRB page 108 wrote:CODEXES
Each of the races or space-born empires in Warhammer 40,000 has a codex - a book that contains rules, background and collecting information for that army. Within the pages of each codex, you'll find everything you need to know about that faction. An important part of this is the army list,which will let you transform your collection of Citadel miniatures into a Warhammer40,000 army.
Are the IA books codexes?
Does it matter if they're codexes? Let's see, breaking this down:
Each of the races or space-born empires in Warhammer 40,000 has a codex - a book that contains rules, background and collecting information for that army.
Sister of Battle do not have a codex, a book. So, one sentence in, and we see that this is already false.
Within the pages of each codex, you'll find everything you need to know about that faction.
Everything I need to know. Except how many hull points my vehicles have, what psychic powers my guys can take, what unit type my models are, and well, quite a lot of other info too. So, sentence two, also false.
An important part of this is the army list,which will let you transform your collection of Citadel miniatures into a Warhammer40,000 army.
Ah, maybe the key part is the army list. I can find those in IA books too. Maybe IA books are codexes.
22413
Post by: mwnciboo
Can you explain exactly what you mean by this? It doesn't mention IA books being official neither does it mention Forge World Products being Codices/ Codexes at any point. Or are you by extrapolation of the fact that they produce Official licensed stuff for GW it is therefore Official and should be treated as a Codex?
If so I've got some Official Fantasy Flight games stuff based in the 40k Universe is that to be considered Official as well?
Bottomline, FW stuff gets bloody silly in all games, Apocalypse Bombardment templates and super-heavy vehicles in a standard Skirmish game of 1500 points/ 1750 points or 2000points. I love some tourney's with and some without, I don't see the need to make it official and have FW throughout all Tourney games.
If we don't draw a line, people will be saying "I want Apocalypse rules in Standard Tourneys, so I can have Warhounds and Titanhammer Squads, or a Massive Leman Russ Squadron - Emperors Fist etc etc or a Thunderhawk Gunship or this FoC . People have got to be more reasonable, no one forces you to pay top dollar for FW resin stuff, it's nice, but it's pretty stupid to bitch about not getting to use it. Kind of like buying a Ferrari and then moaning about the Fuel and Insurance Costs.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Jesus Redbeard. The words "This Official Codex for Sisters of Battle" on the first page of the article tells you this is their official codex. You're reaching bro.
28365
Post by: OverwatchCNC
Hulksmash wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:Right, no Stormtalons, Ork Bommas or updated Daemons then. They're not in the Codex after all.
Specifically stated as Official updates to the codexes. Not units that can be used in 40k like Forgeworld. Actual, physical updates to the codex. There is a difference.
As a side not I'm cool with forgeworld. All the extra AA means that flyers would go away and my 5th edition armies would be back to performing excellently. Down with flyers and 6th edition 
Hulk as usual you come up wi better points than I do. Adding in all the FW would definitely leave us with a 5.5 system since the assault nerf would still be in effect but my GK wouldn't mind a return to 5th either, I never used a lot of storm ravens until 6th.
Hulksmash wrote:Jesus Redbeard. The words "This Official Codex for Sisters of Battle" on the first page of the article tells you this is their official codex. You're reaching bro.
At this point I feel both sides are reaching quite a bit. If anything I hope that this thread makes TOs and players think really hard about how they want to integrate FW and if they want to goo to events that integrate it. Over the 18 pages of  storm I stirred up I have come to cement my opinion that FW should be allowed at some events, but I wouldn't want them at all events. I would like to be able to choose whether or not I want to play in FW allowed events or core rules only events. Honestly I always have said when I want to play with my Baneblades and FW models I will organize an apocalypse game, I have always felt those rules and models we better suited for that arena.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Redbeard wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
It'd be great if your side wouldn't ignore half of that paragraph every single time. Thanks.
No one ignored anything. The part that you seem to think we're ignoring doesn't actually say anything about the models being invalid. It says that it's polite to make sure your opponent is happy. That line applies equally to non- FW stuff, as far as I'm concerned.
"Want to play a game of 40k?"
Doesn't have different implications than
"Want to play a game of 40k with Forge World models?"
to you?
Yes, I guess when it comes down to it, I dislike allowing Forgeworld because of unit envy. Nids get Stonecrusher Carnifexes (yay?), Malanthropes (yay?) and ... what else really? Am I missing a really useful unit?
Those big spore mines are pretty cool.
Meiotic Spores are extremely "meh" as far as I'm concerned. They don't really solve any problems the codex has.
Between allies and native units every other codex gets access to at least a dozen new useful units.
Sounds like you're more upset about allies than FW.
I bolded the part you missed.
Ultimately I don't care one way or the other, I'll just end up griping.
Well, that explains a lot. If you don't care, why are you taking part in the debate?
I cared when I started, I've come to not care. Mostly because I play for fun, I'll rarely if ever go to any tournaments outside my local one (mostly because I can't afford to), and fighting over what pieces of plastic/resin/metal to allow on the table isn't fun.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Hulksmash wrote:
As a side not I'm cool with forgeworld. All the extra AA means that flyers would go away
Why? It's not like they auto-kill flyers, they're just capable against them, and typically are rather easily engaged and destroyed themselves.
Unless all you're playing is something like Cron air with 8 flyers and are anticipating facing nothing but a wall of AA guns, it's probably not going to make a huge difference. People *might* take some AA units, probably not tons of them, and while they'll be better against flyers than most units, it's not like they'll be so much more effective against flyers than their non-skyfire equivalents are against normal vehicles.
You're grossly overstating the effect these AA guns will have.
and my 5th edition armies would be back to performing excellently. Down with flyers and 6th edition 
I have yet to see a reason why 5th edition armies would be so "back" just because flyers would be gone (which is a rather silly assumption). With the hilarious fragility of 5E vehicles and changes to transported units, not to mention wound allocation, they'll never work again the same way.
There's absolutely no reason either of these things (disappearance of flyers and return to 5E lists) would come to pass.
3933
Post by: Kingsley
Vaktathi wrote:Why? It's not like they auto-kill flyers, they're just capable against them, and typically are rather easily engaged and destroyed themselves.
Unless all you're playing is something like Cron air with 8 flyers and are anticipating facing nothing but a wall of AA guns, it's probably not going to make a huge difference. People *might* take some AA units, probably not tons of them, and while they'll be better against flyers than most units, it's not like they'll be so much more effective against flyers than their non-skyfire equivalents are against normal vehicles.
You're grossly overstating the effect these AA guns will have.
Go read the Interceptor rules and then get back to me. It turns out that getting guaranteed shots on enemy units before they ever get a chance to attack is quite strong!
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
mwnciboo wrote:
If we don't draw a line, people will be saying "I want Apocalypse rules in Standard Tourneys, so I can have Warhounds and Titanhammer Squads, or a Massive Leman Russ Squadron - Emperors Fist etc etc or a Thunderhawk Gunship or this FoC . People have got to be more reasonable, no one forces you to pay top dollar for FW resin stuff, it's nice, but it's pretty stupid to bitch about not getting to use it. Kind of like buying a Ferrari and then moaning about the Fuel and Insurance Costs.
Slippery slope much? The stuff we're arguing about is not the Titans and similar units, it's the ones that explicitly say they're meant for "normal" 40k.
Hulksmash wrote:Jesus Redbeard. The words "This Official Codex for Sisters of Battle" on the first page of the article tells you this is their official codex. You're reaching bro.
Hulksmash wrote:
Specifically stated as Official updates to the codexes. Not units that can be used in 40k like Forgeworld. Actual, physical updates to the codex. There is a difference.
But how do we know to look there in the first place? After all, everything we need to know is in the Codex.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Kingsley wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Why? It's not like they auto-kill flyers, they're just capable against them, and typically are rather easily engaged and destroyed themselves.
Unless all you're playing is something like Cron air with 8 flyers and are anticipating facing nothing but a wall of AA guns, it's probably not going to make a huge difference. People *might* take some AA units, probably not tons of them, and while they'll be better against flyers than most units, it's not like they'll be so much more effective against flyers than their non-skyfire equivalents are against normal vehicles.
You're grossly overstating the effect these AA guns will have.
Go read the Interceptor rules and then get back to me. It turns out that getting guaranteed shots on enemy units before they ever get a chance to attack is quite strong!
Remember how the gun can't shoot on its next turn if it takes an Interceptor shot?
Its also done at the end of the enemy movement phase. So the final position of the target is important. Which means you can plan out the movement to avoid the guns.
28365
Post by: OverwatchCNC
Grey Templar wrote: Kingsley wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Why? It's not like they auto-kill flyers, they're just capable against them, and typically are rather easily engaged and destroyed themselves.
Unless all you're playing is something like Cron air with 8 flyers and are anticipating facing nothing but a wall of AA guns, it's probably not going to make a huge difference. People *might* take some AA units, probably not tons of them, and while they'll be better against flyers than most units, it's not like they'll be so much more effective against flyers than their non-skyfire equivalents are against normal vehicles.
You're grossly overstating the effect these AA guns will have.
Go read the Interceptor rules and then get back to me. It turns out that getting guaranteed shots on enemy units before they ever get a chance to attack is quite strong!
Remember how the gun can't shoot on its next turn if it takes an Interceptor shot?
Its also done at the end of the enemy movement phase. So the final position of the target is important. Which means you can plan out the movement to avoid the guns.
I thought the wording was when a model arrives by deep strike or a flyer enters from reserves. Don't have my brb at work to double check myself so apologies if I have it wrong,
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Yes, it's when a unit arrives from reserves within range and line of sight. Automatically Appended Next Post: AlmightyWalrus wrote:But how do we know to look there in the first place? After all, everything we need to know is in the Codex.
And according to the rules in the White Dwarf, the pages from it are considered to be in the Codex.
26742
Post by: Dugg
Kingsley wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Why? It's not like they auto-kill flyers, they're just capable against them, and typically are rather easily engaged and destroyed themselves.
Unless all you're playing is something like Cron air with 8 flyers and are anticipating facing nothing but a wall of AA guns, it's probably not going to make a huge difference. People *might* take some AA units, probably not tons of them, and while they'll be better against flyers than most units, it's not like they'll be so much more effective against flyers than their non-skyfire equivalents are against normal vehicles.
You're grossly overstating the effect these AA guns will have.
Go read the Interceptor rules and then get back to me. It turns out that getting guaranteed shots on enemy units before they ever get a chance to attack is quite strong!
You mean, like going first?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OverwatchCNC wrote: Grey Templar wrote: Kingsley wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Why? It's not like they auto-kill flyers, they're just capable against them, and typically are rather easily engaged and destroyed themselves.
Unless all you're playing is something like Cron air with 8 flyers and are anticipating facing nothing but a wall of AA guns, it's probably not going to make a huge difference. People *might* take some AA units, probably not tons of them, and while they'll be better against flyers than most units, it's not like they'll be so much more effective against flyers than their non-skyfire equivalents are against normal vehicles.
You're grossly overstating the effect these AA guns will have.
Go read the Interceptor rules and then get back to me. It turns out that getting guaranteed shots on enemy units before they ever get a chance to attack is quite strong!
Remember how the gun can't shoot on its next turn if it takes an Interceptor shot?
Its also done at the end of the enemy movement phase. So the final position of the target is important. Which means you can plan out the movement to avoid the guns.
I thought the wording was when a model arrives by deep strike or a flyer enters from reserves. Don't have my brb at work to double check myself so apologies if I have it wrong,
It's at the end of the movement phase, after all movement that turn. So you can move on your Night Scythe and jump out the unit in front of that Sabre Def line and thn your opponent has to decide what to shoot at.
In a 6 Night Scythe in a Flying Circus list you have 4 coming on with troops and most likely only have 2-3 interceptor units so you do the math.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Yes, like going first. Every time you have something come in from reserves. Which includes every time you have a flyer come on the board after it flies off the board.
26742
Post by: Dugg
rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, like going first. Every time you have something come in from reserves. Which includes every time you have a flyer come on the board after it flies off the board.
and in a say 1750point list do you really think that 1 AA unit, maybe 2 or 3 tops would last for more then 2 turns? Everyone seems to think these AA units are indestructible and will be on the board for the whole game.
I've play tested the Cron Flyers vs Sabre Def Line units and 2 Sabre squads only last unit Turn 2 on average sometime one will last unit turn 3. They average 2 Night Scythe kills when one lasts unit end of Turn 2 and 1 makes it unit end of Turn 3.
3933
Post by: Kingsley
If you use Sabre Defense Platforms correctly, they are toughness 7 with many wounds and have 2+ cover saves against everything.
If your army can deal with that easily, I'd like to see your list...
465
Post by: Redbeard
Hulksmash wrote:Jesus Redbeard. The words "This Official Codex for Sisters of Battle" on the first page of the article tells you this is their official codex. You're reaching bro.
Honestly, i had no idea it said that. Because, while i have a decent sized sisters army (my first army, btw), i was notable to get those white dwarves, as they'd sold out. But that's okay, because at least all the codexes are readily available, while FW rules are hard to find, right...
I guess that does raise another question too. WD is a separate entity from the GW design studio, much like how FW is a separate entity. So, why is it okay for WD to say 'this is official' and no one questions the legality of their statement, but when FW does the same, there's a huge debate about whether they're a gw company. The BRB doesn't say anything about white dwarf, so if the argument is that only publications included by the BRB count, then white dwarf calling a couple of their articles a codex isn't really valid...
Yeah, that's dumb. But so is the whole line of thought that says fw is illegal because only the fw books say they are leg.
26742
Post by: Dugg
*Side note - When running Orks I have taking control of my opponents Aegis Def Guns 8 out of 9 times I've gone up against it by Turn 2 and used it to shoot down their flyers as they come on. haha!!! This game is so fun, crazy and AWESOME!
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
rigeld2 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:But how do we know to look there in the first place? After all, everything we need to know is in the Codex.
And according to the rules in the White Dwarf, the pages from it are considered to be in the Codex.
That's not the point though. How do we know to check the WD in the first place?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Redbeard wrote:So, why is it okay for WD to say 'this is official' and no one questions the legality of their statement, but when FW does the same, there's a huge debate about whether they're a gw company. The BRB doesn't say anything about white dwarf, so if the argument is that only publications included by the BRB count, then white dwarf calling a couple of their articles a codex isn't really valid...
Historical precedent. WD used to print rules all the time and has restarted doing so, and FW has always said that their rules are not for normal 40k. Now FW is trying to "invade" (I used quotes to not offend) non- FW 40k it's obviously going to be met with resistance. Also, the fact that the WD rules (not the Sisters dex, but the Stormtalon etc) are being incorporated into the GW digital releases lends to the "authenticity" of WD. Automatically Appended Next Post: AlmightyWalrus wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:But how do we know to look there in the first place? After all, everything we need to know is in the Codex.
And according to the rules in the White Dwarf, the pages from it are considered to be in the Codex.
That's not the point though. How do we know to check the WD in the first place?
... Because you read it?
You read the White Dwarf. You find rules you want to use. You check if it's viable. Oh look - it's a Codex update, so it's viable.
22413
Post by: mwnciboo
AlmightyWalrus wrote: mwnciboo wrote:
If we don't draw a line, people will be saying "I want Apocalypse rules in Standard Tourneys, so I can have Warhounds and Titanhammer Squads, or a Massive Leman Russ Squadron - Emperors Fist etc etc or a Thunderhawk Gunship or this FoC . People have got to be more reasonable, no one forces you to pay top dollar for FW resin stuff, it's nice, but it's pretty stupid to bitch about not getting to use it. Kind of like buying a Ferrari and then moaning about the Fuel and Insurance Costs.
Slippery slope much? The stuff we're arguing about is not the Titans and similar units, it's the ones that explicitly say they're meant for "normal" 40k.
Can you give me a list of Units meant for Normal 40k? Do you mean Contemptors? Razorbacks with Multi-melta's? Predators with Conversion Beamer turrets? Landraider Terminus Ultra's, Achilles Pattern Land Raiders? As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't in a Codex / FAQ/ ERRATA it's not "normal" 40k. I have quite a few of the IA books, the Badab Campaign ones which have some amazing Special Characters in there with amazing Statlines (sons of Medusa no less  ) I would never use them in a normal Campaign, nor would I expect me to be able to use these units in a Tourney Game unless it explicitly state that FW units within the following limits were allowed. Even then I don't normally both because it is too expensive in points. Everyone keeps spazzing out on this and it's a none issue.
26742
Post by: Dugg
Kingsley wrote:If you use Sabre Defense Platforms correctly, they are toughness 7 with many wounds and have 2+ cover saves against everything.
If your army can deal with that easily, I'd like to see your list... 
Bikers, Jump Units or any Template/No Cover shots to start. They fail a LD7 check and fall back the platforms are removed as casualties as well.
62238
Post by: MarkyMark
OverwatchCNC wrote: Grey Templar wrote: Kingsley wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Why? It's not like they auto-kill flyers, they're just capable against them, and typically are rather easily engaged and destroyed themselves.
Unless all you're playing is something like Cron air with 8 flyers and are anticipating facing nothing but a wall of AA guns, it's probably not going to make a huge difference. People *might* take some AA units, probably not tons of them, and while they'll be better against flyers than most units, it's not like they'll be so much more effective against flyers than their non-skyfire equivalents are against normal vehicles.
You're grossly overstating the effect these AA guns will have.
Go read the Interceptor rules and then get back to me. It turns out that getting guaranteed shots on enemy units before they ever get a chance to attack is quite strong!
Remember how the gun can't shoot on its next turn if it takes an Interceptor shot?
Its also done at the end of the enemy movement phase. So the final position of the target is important. Which means you can plan out the movement to avoid the guns.
I thought the wording was when a model arrives by deep strike or a flyer enters from reserves. Don't have my brb at work to double check myself so apologies if I have it wrong,
Its any model coming in from reserves
After having a tourny last weekend (yea I know ive mentioned it a few times), there was a LOT of AA guns there, from sabres to hyperios, one guy had 12 hyperios defence launchers stuck behind a aegis another had quite a few sabres in with big blobs of IG behind aegis. Demons got battered by the AA guns and so did flyers and so did drop pod armies, I did hear of fatewaever getting killed on his first turn on the board...
Yes it cannot shoot the next turn but it can shoot the next opponents turn so anything else coming in from reserves then will get intercepted.
I only run 3 of the hyperios without a defence line I lost one of them in 6 games, they are pretty tough and cant be locked in combat either
26742
Post by: Dugg
@ MarkyMark - Did you have them in one squad or what?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Dugg wrote: Kingsley wrote:If you use Sabre Defense Platforms correctly, they are toughness 7 with many wounds and have 2+ cover saves against everything.
If your army can deal with that easily, I'd like to see your list... 
Bikers, Jump Units or any Template/No Cover shots to start. They fail a LD7 check and fall back the platforms are removed as casualties as well.
Um. Not true. You only remove the guns if there aren't enough gunners to man them.
page 46 BRB wrote:Because they need at least one
crewman per gun in order for the unit
to move, if an Artillery unit does not
have one crewman per gun when it is
forced to Fall Back, any gun models
without crewmen are abandoned and
immediately removed as casualties.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Kingsley wrote:
Go read the Interceptor rules and then get back to me. It turns out that getting guaranteed shots on enemy units before they ever get a chance to attack is quite strong!
I'm not saying it isn't useful, I'm saying it's not auto-killing them however by any means, and most of these platforms are relatively easily destroyed themselves. They're not doing anything an Aegis gun, or that anything coming in from reserve itself (such as...well, flyers!), isn't doing as well. They don't have a particularly huge chance to kill a flyer outright, and between mediocre BS on most and Jink, you're looking at typically inflicting only one HP worth of damage with most AA platforms utilizing Interceptor attacks.
I'm just having a hard time seeing where "zomg my fliers actually might face a credible threat once in a while" translates to "flyers are going to disappear and we're all going to be back to playing 5E and 40k is ruined!"
26742
Post by: Dugg
rigeld2 wrote: Dugg wrote: Kingsley wrote:If you use Sabre Defense Platforms correctly, they are toughness 7 with many wounds and have 2+ cover saves against everything.
If your army can deal with that easily, I'd like to see your list... 
Bikers, Jump Units or any Template/No Cover shots to start. They fail a LD7 check and fall back the platforms are removed as casualties as well.
Um. Not true. You only remove the guns if there aren't enough gunners to man them.
page 46 BRB wrote:Because they need at least one
crewman per gun in order for the unit
to move, if an Artillery unit does not
have one crewman per gun when it is
forced to Fall Back, any gun models
without crewmen are abandoned and
immediately removed as casualties.
IA Aeronautica pg26 Sabre Weapons Battery
..., when called upon to fall back the crew must leave their guns behind and Fall Back, the platforms are then removed as casualties.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
mwnciboo wrote:
Can you give me a list of Units meant for Normal 40k? Do you mean Contemptors? Razorbacks with Multi-melta's? Predators with Conversion Beamer turrets? Landraider Terminus Ultra's, Achilles Pattern Land Raiders? As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't in a Codex / FAQ/ ERRATA it's not "normal" 40k. I have quite a few of the IA books, the Badab Campaign ones which have some amazing Special Characters in there with amazing Statlines (sons of Medusa no less  ) I would never use them in a normal Campaign, nor would I expect me to be able to use these units in a Tourney Game unless it explicitly state that FW units within the following limits were allowed. Even then I don't normally both because it is too expensive in points. Everyone keeps spazzing out on this and it's a none issue.
The latest Forge World books clearly label what's intended for "normal" 40k and what isn't.
rigeld2 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:But how do we know to look there in the first place? After all, everything we need to know is in the Codex.
And according to the rules in the White Dwarf, the pages from it are considered to be in the Codex.
That's not the point though. How do we know to check the WD in the first place?
... Because you read it?
You read the White Dwarf. You find rules you want to use. You check if it's viable. Oh look - it's a Codex update, so it's viable.
But then...
*looks at Land Raider Achilles in IA: Apoc 2nd ed*
"A Land Raider Achilles is a Heavy Support choice in a Codex Space Marines, Codex Black Templars, Codex Space Wolves or Codex Dark Angels army." So it's an entry in a book published by GW saying it's a Heavy Support-choice for an army chosen from one of the Codices. What's the difference?
62238
Post by: MarkyMark
Dugg wrote:@ MarkyMark - Did you have them in one squad or what?
Yes mate 3 in one squad with no command platform, they are 0-4 and take up fast attack slot
Faced two flyers, one ork dakka jet gave it locked velocity on the first turn it came on, I did say to go behind a building where I wouldnt have LOS but he said nah go for my beefy assault squad. Second flyer was necron night scythe, doing the tactic of zipping across the map to get to one of my objectives that went bye in its first turn as well, again i said go to the other side of the board but his plan with the flyer was to get to my objectives quickly
47462
Post by: rigeld2
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
But then...
*looks at Land Raider Achilles in IA: Apoc 2nd ed*
"A Land Raider Achilles is a Heavy Support choice in a Codex Space Marines, Codex Black Templars, Codex Space Wolves or Codex Dark Angels army." So it's an entry in a book published by GW saying it's a Heavy Support-choice for an army chosen from one of the Codices. What's the difference?
Does it say it's a codex update?
It doesn't?
Oh...
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Who cares if it uses those exact words? It very clearly states that it is an additional option for those armies, whether it says "codex update" or "heavy support choice". Both are equally official.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Peregrine wrote:
Who cares if it uses those exact words? It very clearly states that it is an additional option for those armies, whether it says "codex update" or "heavy support choice". Both are equally official.
The rulebook does when it says to use a codex to build your army. Saying it's a codex update is one thing. Not saying it is, well... not.
26742
Post by: Dugg
Dugg wrote: Kingsley wrote:If you use Sabre Defense Platforms correctly, they are toughness 7 with many wounds and have 2+ cover saves against everything.
If your army can deal with that easily, I'd like to see your list... 
Bikers, Jump Units or any Template/No Cover shots to start. They fail a LD7 check and fall back the platforms are removed as casualties as well.
by the way, how are you getting a 2+ cover anyway? I mean sure you can give the Crew a 2+ cover but the Platforms can't get the go to ground bonus as Artillery so if you go to ground with your Crew I will just Focus Fire your Platforms.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
It says it's a Heavy Support choice for armies chosen from the Codices listed. The Heavy Support section is part of the Codex. If the unit in question is part of the Heavy Support choices, it's part of the Codex. For example, what's a Codex Black Templars army? It's the units selected from Codex: Black Templars. In this army, a Land Raider Achilles is a Heavy Support choice. As such, the LRA is a part of Codex: Black Templars.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
AlmightyWalrus wrote:It says it's a Heavy Support choice for armies chosen from the Codices listed. The Heavy Support section is part of the Codex. If the unit in question is part of the Heavy Support choices, it's part of the Codex. For example, what's a Codex Black Templars army? It's the units selected from Codex: Black Templars. In this army, a Land Raider Achilles is a Heavy Support choice. As such, the LRA is a part of Codex: Black Templars.
So you're arguing that it's a codex update without any language saying that the codex is updated. Cool story bro.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
rigeld2 wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:It says it's a Heavy Support choice for armies chosen from the Codices listed. The Heavy Support section is part of the Codex. If the unit in question is part of the Heavy Support choices, it's part of the Codex. For example, what's a Codex Black Templars army? It's the units selected from Codex: Black Templars. In this army, a Land Raider Achilles is a Heavy Support choice. As such, the LRA is a part of Codex: Black Templars.
So you're arguing that it's a codex update without any language saying that the codex is updated. Cool story bro.
Yes, I am, because you're the one who made up the qualification that it has to say "OFFICIAL UPDATE" or something like that. It says it's part of Codex: Black Templars. Just not the way you want it to say it. Now, do you mind attacking my point instead of dismissing it out of hand?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
AlmightyWalrus wrote:rigeld2 wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:It says it's a Heavy Support choice for armies chosen from the Codices listed. The Heavy Support section is part of the Codex. If the unit in question is part of the Heavy Support choices, it's part of the Codex. For example, what's a Codex Black Templars army? It's the units selected from Codex: Black Templars. In this army, a Land Raider Achilles is a Heavy Support choice. As such, the LRA is a part of Codex: Black Templars.
So you're arguing that it's a codex update without any language saying that the codex is updated. Cool story bro.
Yes, I am, because you're the one who made up the qualification that it has to say "OFFICIAL UPDATE" or something like that. It says it's part of Codex: Black Templars. Just not the way you want it to say it. Now, do you mind attacking my point instead of dismissing it out of hand?
I did attack your point.
Page 108 in the BRB says to use the various codexes to build your army. The various White Dwarfs specifically state they're Codex updates. You're trying to take something that's implied (but not stated) as absolute permission - but you can't do that.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
How is it merely implied? If it's a heavy suppor choice it's part of the FOC, if it's part of the FOC it's part of the Codex. If that weren't the case you'd be unable to ever take it (even if you were playing with FW), as it wouldn't be part of Codex: Black Templars, and it's only allowed to be in an army chosen from Codex: Black Templars (in this example).
63000
Post by: Peregrine
rigeld2 wrote:So you're arguing that it's a codex update without any language saying that the codex is updated. Cool story bro.
How the hell is "this is a 100% official heavy support choice for X army intended for standard 40k" NOT a codex update? The only problem here is that you're insisting that GW, a company with a long and glorious tradition of being sloppy in their rule writing, hasn't used the precise language that you demand they use.
As has been said before, there are legitimate (though wrong, in the end) arguments against FW. "They're not official" isn't one of them.
rigeld2 wrote:Page 108 in the BRB says to use the various codexes to build your army. The various White Dwarfs specifically state they're Codex updates. You're trying to take something that's implied (but not stated) as absolute permission - but you can't do that.
And the FW books say "this is an additional unit for X army". You consult your codex for the army list, and the FW books give you permission to add various units to that army list. Just like you consult your codex for the army list, and the WD rules give you permission to add various units to that army list. It works the same in both cases, the only reason to argue otherwise is if you're starting from the assumption that FW has to be different.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
AlmightyWalrus wrote:How is it merely implied? If it's a heavy suppor choice it's part of the FOC, if it's part of the FOC it's part of the Codex. If that weren't the case you'd be unable to ever take it (even if you were playing with FW), as it wouldn't be part of Codex: Black Templars, and it's only allowed to be in an army chosen from Codex: Black Templars (in this example).
I've bolded the assumption you made.
You're assuming that FOCs only exist in codexes (demonstrably false) and that they can only be used with BRB missions (demonstrably false). It's perfectly valid to say that it's a HS choice to be used with C: BT in the (Planetstrike or Cities of Death) expansion.
You haven't shown that it's a Codex Update.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
rigeld2 wrote:You're assuming that FOCs only exist in codexes (demonstrably false) and that they can only be used with BRB missions (demonstrably false). It's perfectly valid to say that it's a HS choice to be used with C: BT in the (Planetstrike or Cities of Death) expansion.
Except the note at the start of the book clearly states that the rules are intended for STANDARD 40k.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
rigeld2 wrote:Page 108 in the BRB says to use the various codexes to build your army. The various White Dwarfs specifically state they're Codex updates. You're trying to take something that's implied (but not stated) as absolute permission - but you can't do that.
Right.
And another GW publication states that the units listed therein are part of the codex in question.
What was your point again?
53116
Post by: helium42
Peregrine wrote:rigeld2 wrote:You're assuming that FOCs only exist in codexes (demonstrably false) and that they can only be used with BRB missions (demonstrably false). It's perfectly valid to say that it's a HS choice to be used with C: BT in the (Planetstrike or Cities of Death) expansion.
Except the note at the start of the book clearly states that the rules are intended for STANDARD 40k.
The people who keep making this argument always forget about the second part of the statement they are quoting, which states that FW models/rules require your opponent's permission. Codex models/rules and official codex additions found in WD do not have this restriction, which sets them apart.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
helium42 wrote:The people who keep making this argument always forget about the second part of the statement they are quoting, which states that FW models/rules require your opponent's permission. Codex models/rules and official codex additions found in WD do not have this restriction, which sets them apart.
That's not what the second part of that statement says.
28365
Post by: OverwatchCNC
This entire thread has basically become cyclical between the same people not to mention the insinuation that people who disagree with FW being allowed are now apparently illiterate.
I almost regret ever writing a rebuttal to Reece's article. If a Mod were to deem this lockable due to cyclical arguments and personal attacks and insults I wouldn't shed a tear over it or anything.
As a last statement on this until I bow out, lock or not, I don't think banning FW across the board is the answer. I want to see a mix of events allowing a mixed level of FW. Some core rules and codices only, some "40k Approved" units only, and some full force FW allowance. Also, my arguing against allowing FW in all events doesn't make me illiterate. I am far from illiterate and I do take offense at being called so; either directly or as a member of a group who holds a certain belief.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
OverwatchCNC wrote:This entire thread has basically become cyclical between the same people not to mention the insinuation that people who disagree with FW being allowed are now apparently illiterate.
Except that's not what's being said at all. The objection is to people who claim that FW isn't official, using some pretty desperate (and pathetic) rationalizations. People are free to object to FW for other reasons (unbalanced rules, for example) without being illiterate. They're still wrong, but at least they aren't making factually stupid claims.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
This is one of those funny things about game design...you have to use the exact words, no matter how "obvious" it may seem to the one designing the rules. If you intentionally leave holes in rules because you just assume the players will all "get it", then you're just opening yourself up to debates like this one because one can not always easily interpret the designer's intent. Indeed some would argue that it's outright impossible to determine the "intent" behind a rule and that the only way to play correctly is how it's been written (and in this case, it's not specifically written that FW rules are tournament legal, merely "official", which could mean any number of things but definitely not that they are 100%, without a doubt, legal in tournaments).
It's not necessarily because people are stupid, or illiterate, as has been constantly suggested in this thread and others, either. I am not "stupid" just because I read the same piece of information that you did and came to a completely different conclusion, it's because GW have intentionally left room for doubt. You guys are treating this as if I'm just making some factually absurd claim like the sky is actually green, but that's not the case. The only reason I've come to the conclusion I have is because of the language GW has chosen to write their rules with, not a lack of understanding on my part. It is not "obvious", it is not a "no-brainer".
You see the word "official" and assume that means "legal for use in all games, including tournaments". I disagree, since GW has not specifically addressed tournament play when writing these rules it's still open for debate. "Official" in this case simply means that they are GW models/rules designed to be used with the 40k ruleset, as opposed to one of their other rulesets (so no bringing your Crassus armored assault transport to a game of Warhammer Fantasy) or games produced by another party entirely. It's not proof that the unit is sanctioned for tournament play, it's more or less GW just putting their stamp on it and saying "We own this!", similar to what rigeld2 pointed out before with games like Space Marine and Dawn of War having the GW logo slapped on them. I see it more as a statement that they own the imagery, names, devices, etc. and not much more than that.
It's entirely possible for companies to produce "official" rules and products for their games, while at the same time restricting or banning their use in organized or competitive play...Magic: The Gathering is one of them. Technically every card ever produced is "official" (unless they're part of the "Collector's Edition" which is specifically mentioned as not being legal for tournament play), and "legal" in games being played at your kitchen table, but when you agree to play in an event using rules from a specific format then you agree to abide by those rules, and they clearly state which modern sets are legal and which cards are banned/restricted. You can't use cards like Chrome Mox or Jace, the Mind Sculptor when playing Standard, even though these are official cards that Wizards have printed in the past, and are legal in other formats. I'm pretty sure if you look around you can find other examples from other games...I'm not 100% familiar with Battletech or how competitive play works for that game but I'm pretty sure they don't allow anything and everything that's ever been produced in tournaments, either, even if it's all technically "official". From what I can tell they even ban the use of some map sheets because the terrain printed on them is unbalanced.
In any case, I just don't think this is quite as cut-and-dry as you guys are trying to make it sound, and I think some of you guys are resorting to just straight-up bullying to try and get your way. "Official" is not the same thing as "tournament legal", that's really the end of the argument as far as I fething care.
Peregrine wrote:rigeld2 wrote:You're assuming that FOCs only exist in codexes (demonstrably false) and that they can only be used with BRB missions (demonstrably false). It's perfectly valid to say that it's a HS choice to be used with C: BT in the (Planetstrike or Cities of Death) expansion.
Except the note at the start of the book clearly states that the rules are intended for STANDARD 40k.
Which does not mean "these rules are sanctioned for use in tournaments". Really, "standard" 40k kinda means feth all in the end. What is "standard" 40k? I define it as 40k being played with the BRB and official codices. Clearly we can't even agree on this as you define it as BRB, codices, and all the garbage FW puts out on top of that.
GW, if they wanted, could very clearly define "standard" 40k for us, but I guess they get too big of a kick out of watching the fat, lonely nerds rip each other's throats out over a stupid, piece of gak game to use their authority to make an official decision. List FW and WD updates as not only being "official" but specifically tournament legal in the BRB, done. I guess the idea here is they don't want to take away the option from event organizers to run their events however they see fit, but I don't see how you still can't give TO's the final word on what is and isn't allowed while also making an actual decision.
You first.
My point is that without official word from GW, FW rules are not tournament legal. FW rules say they are "official" for use in games of 40k, but "official for use" does not necessarily mean "tournament legal". If the IA books said "These rules are official for use in games of 40k and completely tournament legal" then there would be no room for argument. If GW themselves mentioned FW rules or even WD codex updates in the BRB and specifically mentioned them as being legal in all games and that they were officially sanctioned for tournament use, then the argument against FW in tournaments wouldn't really have any legs to stand on. Since that's not the case, the debate continues as to whether or not FW should be legal in tournaments, and that's a debate that literally will never have an end since it's not as "obvious" as you all claim.
As it's been said before, it's up to the TO's at this point, since GW has effectively washed their hands of the competitive scene and refuses to acknowledge that it even exists, let alone make any decisions regarding competitive play. And TO's can literally restrict or ban whatever they want at their discretion, whether or not it really seems "fair" to us. Could a TO ban Codex: Necrons if he felt it was warranted? Yeah, though that would probably hurt attendance and maybe hinder sales at his store. Likewise one could argue that a blanket FW ban is also not fair, but in the end that alienates much fewer players (You can still play with your IG, and maybe even proxy some codex units with your FW models if you wish, you just can't use the FW Elysians or DKoK lists...whereas if IG were just banned flat-out you couldn't use anything at all). You don't have to play in events or shop at stores that don't allow FW, but considering that many stores have had a "no FW" policy through multiple editions, and continue to survive regardless, I doubt they'll care about continuing to not receive your business.
Yes, it says "official" in the FW books, but what does "official" really mean in this context? That it's merely produced by GW and not a third party like Chapterhouse? That it's part of the 40k universe and as such they own it, along with everything else (well, supposedly, we don't really know yet if GW actually do own all their copyrights or not)? Legal in all games, including tournaments? How do you arrive to that conclusion without the word "tournament" ever being brought up? Haven't TO's statistically always been able to modify the rules to their heart's content anyway? Haven't the players for that matter, with the core rules giving everyone permission to modify, change, add or omit anything? Should we even really care what GW says when GW has effectively washed its hands of the competitive scene and refuses to even acknowledge the fact anymore that people do want to play their game competitively, unless it's Jervis aiming to mock said players for "doing it wrong" in his personal bs White Dwarf column every month?
Personally I don't fething care anymore, but I've taken the opposite approach that Redbeard apparently has. Instead of saying "Screw it!" and opening the flood gates, allowing anything and everything in all games of 40k, I think we should rein in the bs and start banning gak left and right. To hell with "playing 40k the way it's written", if 40k is really so inherently broken then it shouldn't be. Right?
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Sidstyler wrote:FW rules say they are "official" for use in games of 40k, but "official for use" does not necessarily mean "tournament legal".
That's exactly what it means. There is no distinction between official rules, and tournament rules. If the rules are official, then they are official. End. Of. Story.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
Then I'm ignoring them anyway, because GW says I can ignore anything I fething want to in the "official rules". I'm "forging my narrative", end of story.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Sidstyler wrote:This is one of those funny things about game design...you have to use the exact words, no matter how "obvious" it may seem to the one designing the rules.
Except GW has a long tradition of not using exact words. The entire " FW isn't official" case is based on the assumption that GW always uses exact words in every single situation, so the fact that they didn't use the exact phrase that the anti- FW crowd wants to see is proof that they didn't want FW rules to be official. It's complete  because over and over again GW fails to use such precise language, and it ends up being little more than a refusal to accept FW without a personal signed and notarized letter from the CEO of GW.
GW has made their position clear, and any claim otherwise is complete nonsense.
You see the word "official" and assume that means "legal for use in all games, including tournaments".
You're right. GW doesn't say a thing about tournaments. However, that point is that:
1) The anti- FW crowd uses " FW is not official" as a reason why FW should not be allowed.
and
2) One of the best arguments for allowing FW is that the default tournament rule should be that all official GW products for the current edition of 40k are legal. House rules should be minimized, and just like comp-heavy tournaments were a stupid idea we shouldn't ban FW units that people have paid money for and invested time and effort in building. It's just sad that the same people who argue against comp-heavy tournaments turn around and argue for FW bans based on the same reasoning the comp tournament organizers use.
And yes, third-party TOs have a right to disagree and ban FW units. However, the response should be to laugh at how pathetic they are, just like we laughed at people who ran comp-heavy tournaments until they stopped doing it.
It's not proof that the unit is sanctioned for tournament play, it's more or less GW just putting their stamp on it and saying "We own this!", similar to what rigeld2 pointed out before with games like Space Marine and Dawn of War having the GW logo slapped on them. I see it more as a statement that they own the imagery, names, devices, etc. and not much more than that.
Except that's a stupid comparison. The Space Marine game is official GW IP. Forgeworld rules are official 40k rules, and it explicitly states that they're meant to be part of the standard game of 40k.
Which does not mean "these rules are sanctioned for use in tournaments". Really, "standard" 40k kinda means feth all in the end. What is "standard" 40k? I define it as 40k being played with the BRB and official codices. Clearly we can't even agree on this as you define it as BRB, codices, and all the garbage FW puts out on top of that.
Congratulations on missing the context of that quote. He argued that you can't prove that FW didn't mean "X is a heavy support choice for Y army in Planetstrike" when they wrote the rules, which is stupid when the book clearly states that it's talking about standard 40k, not Planetstrike or some other expansion.
And standard 40k includes FW because GW has explicitly stated that FW rules are part of standard 40k. End of discussion.
466
Post by: skkipper
I will not play in any event banning FW. I have made my stand.
41203
Post by: Insurgency Walker
Hate to jump in, however.
A thread about a FW tank caused me to do some digging. I got out a year 2000 Imperial Armour book. This is not IA1, but an imperial vehicle guide softcover that GW produced in association with ForgeWorld (my other FW books say produced by FW, or produced by FW for GW) and it says.
"As noted in the introduction all of the vehicles in this book can be used in games of 40k as part of an imperial guard army, even if they are not included in in codex imperial guard. Each vehicle used counts as one of the choices for the army, of the type indicated below, with the points cost indicated in the rules that follow." The introduction, by Jervis Johnson, talks about the joys of being a tread head, and that He would rather drive an m1 Abrams than Michelle Pfeiffer. Nothing about asking your opponents permission. Looks like the FW crew is softer on the position than GW was at the time.
Wait....rather drive an m1 than have a hot date with Michelle is what it said.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Sidstyler wrote:Then I'm ignoring them anyway, because GW says I can ignore anything I fething want to in the "official rules". I'm "forging my narrative", end of story.
Absolutely, go for it. Just don't act like there's some kind of special justification for ignoring FW and not codexes. They're the same, and ignoring one is the same as ignoring the other.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
skkipper wrote:I will not play in any event banning FW. I have made my stand.
lol, I like that...like this has legit turned into a war and now the spilling of blood is all but inevitable. Choose your sides and make a stand!
feth that, this is a game, I'm not going that damn far. I'm not even saying that FW shouldn't be allowed at all, I actually like the idea of multiple types of events, with some that allow them and others that don't. I just want to be able to have the choice to play against it or not. I wouldn't mind running two different lists myself, one with FW and one without. I just disagree with the idea that not allowing FW is the same as banning a codex, it's not the same in my opinion and I won't be convinced otherwise.
If I'm coming off as being a lot more hostile than that then I apologize, but I'm not so fething opposed to the idea that I'll legit fight someone over it. I've already said before in other threads that in casual play I don't really care. Hell, I'll even play against your fething titan in a 2000 point game so long as you don't plonk it down on the table all like "You HAVE to play against this, the rules say so and if you refuse I win by default!"
Peregrine wrote:It's just sad that the same people who argue against comp-heavy tournaments turn around and argue for FW bans based on the same reasoning the comp tournament organizers use.
Argued. Comp wasn't needed during 5th edition since it seemed a small, tiny little effort was being made to try and streamline the game more for competitive play, but now that they kicked out Alessio and did a complete 180 that's all out the window. As Redbeard alluded to before, the game was always unbalanced, but now it's just inherently broken and nothing short of heavy bans and restrictions is going to "fix" it.
I'm a fan of "out-of-the-box" gaming myself, I don't like the idea of sitting down to a game and having to make a dozen different house rules, or having to be pressured by fellow gamers into restricting myself or following some stupid "code of honor" some neckbeard invented. But if the core game is so broken that it's almost literally unplayable then I don't see any other option: either comp out the gak that doesn't work or just don't play the game. For now I've opted for the latter, but I have an awful lot of money tied up in models that are sitting around gathering dust.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Sidstyler wrote:I just disagree with the idea that not allowing FW is the same as banning a codex, it's not the same in my opinion and I won't be convinced otherwise.
It's exactly the same. Both FW and the codex are official and part of standard 40k, and TOs have the right to ban both of them in their events. You have a right to your personal opinion, but it's no different than someone else who has a personal opinion that they hate orks and should have a variety of tournaments with different policies on allowing orks.
Hell, I'll even play against your fething titan in a 2000 point game so long as you don't plonk it down on the table all like "You HAVE to play against this, the rules say so and if you refuse I win by default!"
Terrible analogy. Titans aren't part of standard 40k, and demanding to use one in a standard game is being TFG. FW, on the other hand, is part of standard 40k and it's reasonable to expect to be allowed to use any standard 40k army in a standard game of 40k.
Argued. Comp wasn't needed during 5th edition since it seemed a small, tiny little effort was being made to try and streamline the game more for competitive play, but now that they kicked out Alessio and did a complete 180 that's all out the window. As Redbeard alluded to before, the game was always unbalanced, but now it's just inherently broken and nothing short of heavy bans and restrictions is going to "fix" it.
And banning FW is a tiny effort to fix the game, and not even a useful one since it applies equally to the most powerful FW units and the most terrible ones.
Until we see legitimate "heavy bans and restrictions", including codex units (or entire codices) with FW units done case-by-case like every other unit, the whole "balance 40k" excuse is just an excuse to remove rules you personally don't like. Just singling out FW while happily playing in events with equally broken stuff is just plain hypocrisy.
3933
Post by: Kingsley
Sidstyler wrote:Comp wasn't needed during 5th edition since it seemed a small, tiny little effort was being made to try and streamline the game more for competitive play, but now that they kicked out Alessio and did a complete 180 that's all out the window. As Redbeard alluded to before, the game was always unbalanced, but now it's just inherently broken and nothing short of heavy bans and restrictions is going to "fix" it.
I've played in a lot of tournaments in both 5th and 6th edition, and I disagree. "6th edition is broken/uncompetitive" is an Internet meme with little grounding in reality. Now that the new FAQs have well and truly eliminated the silly edge cases, 6th edition is quite balanced.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Sidstyler wrote:
You first.
My point is that without official word from GW, FW rules are not tournament legal. FW rules say they are "official" for use in games of 40k, but "official for use" does not necessarily mean "tournament legal". If the IA books said "These rules are official for use in games of 40k and completely tournament legal" then there would be no room for argument. If GW themselves mentioned FW rules or even WD codex updates in the BRB and specifically mentioned them as being legal in all games and that they were officially sanctioned for tournament use, then the argument against FW in tournaments wouldn't really have any legs to stand on. Since that's not the case, the debate continues as to whether or not FW should be legal in tournaments, and that's a debate that literally will never have an end since it's not as "obvious" as you all claim.
As it's been said before, it's up to the TO's at this point, since GW has effectively washed their hands of the competitive scene and refuses to acknowledge that it even exists, let alone make any decisions regarding competitive play. And TO's can literally restrict or ban whatever they want at their discretion, whether or not it really seems "fair" to us. Could a TO ban Codex: Necrons if he felt it was warranted? Yeah, though that would probably hurt attendance and maybe hinder sales at his store. Likewise one could argue that a blanket FW ban is also not fair, but in the end that alienates much fewer players (You can still play with your IG, and maybe even proxy some codex units with your FW models if you wish, you just can't use the FW Elysians or DKoK lists...whereas if IG were just banned flat-out you couldn't use anything at all). You don't have to play in events or shop at stores that don't allow FW, but considering that many stores have had a "no FW" policy through multiple editions, and continue to survive regardless, I doubt they'll care about continuing to not receive your business.
Yes, it says "official" in the FW books, but what does "official" really mean in this context? That it's merely produced by GW and not a third party like Chapterhouse? That it's part of the 40k universe and as such they own it, along with everything else (well, supposedly, we don't really know yet if GW actually do own all their copyrights or not)? Legal in all games, including tournaments? How do you arrive to that conclusion without the word "tournament" ever being brought up? Haven't TO's statistically always been able to modify the rules to their heart's content anyway? Haven't the players for that matter, with the core rules giving everyone permission to modify, change, add or omit anything? Should we even really care what GW says when GW has effectively washed its hands of the competitive scene and refuses to even acknowledge the fact anymore that people do want to play their game competitively, unless it's Jervis aiming to mock said players for "doing it wrong" in his personal bs White Dwarf column every month?
Personally I don't fething care anymore, but I've taken the opposite approach that Redbeard apparently has. Instead of saying "Screw it!" and opening the flood gates, allowing anything and everything in all games of 40k, I think we should rein in the bs and start banning gak left and right. To hell with "playing 40k the way it's written", if 40k is really so inherently broken then it shouldn't be. Right?
Of course TOs are allowed to ban whatever they wish, it's their tournaments. This entire thread is more or less all of us voicing opinions on why they should/shouldn't ban Forge World units. I don't think you'll find a single instance of anyone in this thread claiming that TOs aren't allowed to make their own rules. We're pointing out that we think it's not what they should be doing, but they're free to ban whatever they want regardless.
Sidstyler wrote:My point is that without official word from GW, FW rules are not tournament legal.
And even with official word from GW, they're not "tournament legal", because the TO makes the rules. There is no distinction between "legal" and "tournament legal" except if the TO creates such a difference (different missions, comp, time limits and, in my opinion, Forge World units being banned). We've already argued whether or not we have official word from GW or not to death I'd expect.
Again, there's NO ONE, in this entire thread, that is disputing that TOs get to decide how they want to run their tournament. We're pointing out that Forge World units are entirely official, created by Games Workshop and meant to be used in "standard 40k" and as such "official". You disagree and both sides offer their arguments, but in the end we're all arguing for how we'd like the TOs to rule, not to force anyone to do anything.
As for the illiterate part, while excessive, it'd help if people actually read what the start of the book actually says. I suspect that's the part that makes people frustrated. Especially when we (the "pro-Forge World" side) are accused of wilfully ignoring it, when it doesn't actually say what the argument claims it does.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
This post is pretty nonconstructive at this point, it's still the same ol' same ol' run with the same people arguing are they LEGAL are they UNOFFICIAL and trying to spin words at this point with walls of text that do nothing except to please their own side because it certainly aint convincing anyone at this point.
I myself believe there's no official difference.
Saying
"I want to play a game of 40k"
And whipping out a few Contemptor dreads or using the Mortis Dreadnought is normal.
22639
Post by: Baragash
I love FW and have wanted them in tournies for years.
That being said, FW's version control is such an absolute clusterfeth, I could totally understand any TO that didn't want to go through the rigmarole of figuring out the current version of the rules for everything.
44924
Post by: Zande4
This thread is a joke lol.....
9594
Post by: RiTides
Actually, if you go back to the earlier discussion it was pretty darn useful, with several TOs of major GTs (of Adepticon, Nova Open, Mechanicon...) sharing their thoughts.
I agree it's become a bit repetitive now. To me, this is a grey issue, neither black or white, as evidenced by ardent support on both "sides". Which is why it's up to each individual TO. That, at least, is something all the TOs I mentioned weighing in on this agreed on.
There is no "right" answer to this for all events, and trying to force things to be otherwise is not cool, imo. It will be a case by case thing, just like scenarios are at GTs these days. No "one size fits all".
I do think we'll gradually see more FW acceptance, particularly if/as they consolidate rules to make them easier to find and to know what the current version for a unit is.
The Adepticon link listing every unit and the book or PDF update that it's current rules are found in is invaluable for this.
My opinion certainly opened to More (but not necessarily full) FW use in tournies because of this thread. But it also highlighted the challenges for me, and the reasons a TO may want to disallow, or at least limit, FW use. Will be interesting to see how events trend this next year!
465
Post by: Redbeard
Sidstyler wrote:
This is one of those funny things about game design...you have to use the exact words, no matter how "obvious" it may seem to the one designing the rules.
I agree with you. Games Workshop, however, does not. Moving on.
You see the word "official" and assume that means "legal for use in all games, including tournaments". I disagree, since GW has not specifically addressed tournament play when writing these rules it's still open for debate.
GW has never specifically addressed tournament play. GW tournaments, in the past, have been run by the sales arms of their company, not by anyone connected to the game studio. As with everything GW does, whatever rules they've put in place for any event have been done to drive specific sales. The 'ard boyz series was run by the north american sales team, specifically to drive sales at the independent stores, which is why rounds were not held at GW stores. Does that mean that GW's stance on tournaments is that they're only for independent stores? No - it means nothing, other than that event was designed to help independent stockists.
It's entirely possible for companies to produce "official" rules and products for their games, while at the same time restricting or banning their use in organized or competitive play.
Yes, but GW doesn't make those distinctions, and doesn't produce official tournament rules, regardless of how much some of us would like them to. WotC is a model company in this regard. GW is... less than a model company.
Personally I don't fething care anymore, but I've taken the opposite approach that Redbeard apparently has. Instead of saying "Screw it!" and opening the flood gates, allowing anything and everything in all games of 40k, I think we should rein in the bs and start banning gak left and right. To hell with "playing 40k the way it's written", if 40k is really so inherently broken then it shouldn't be. Right?
Why shouldn't it be? It's clearly the intent of the game designers to have a crazy game with weird stuff happening randomly. It's broken, and it's intentionally broken by the game designers. If you choose to play 40k, you acknowledge that you're playing a broken game (well, a non-balanced game. Broken implies that it doesn't work, and it does, just not how ultra-competitive players want it to). People have tried your approach in the past, banning, or restricting the more broken stuff. It's called comp, and it's pretty universally reviled as an approach because that, too, doesn't produce a balanced game, it simply moves the imbalances around.
Insurgency Walker wrote:...
The introduction, by Jervis Johnson, talks about the joys of being a tread head, and that He would rather drive an m1 Abrams than Michelle Pfeiffer.
...
This explains so much about what's wrong with GW.
Kingsley wrote:...6th edition is quite balanced.
Right, moving on to someone who isn't living in lala land. Do you know what balanced means? And, can you extend that understanding to a matchup between, I dunno, a necron flyerwing army and an assault army (doesn't even really matter which one).
skkipper wrote:I will not play in any event banning FW. I have made my stand.
I may just join you in this.
22413
Post by: mwnciboo
Isn't this debate how the Moirae Schism started?
People get disturbingly militant about stuff that doesn't really matter, we have already established if you want to use it you can at certain tournaments and not at others. It keeps everyone happy.
I am not in favour of a Bi-partisan "BAN ALL FORGE WORLD" or "ALLOW ALL FORGEWORLD". Just a take it or leave it approach, people are really spazzing out here over toy soldiers. It's actually quite amusing when you think about how unreasonable and entrenched everyones position is becoming?
Anyway Guilliman wrote the 1st ever Codex, so it's his fault
8028
Post by: Realmgames
skkipper wrote:I will not play in any event banning FW. I have made my stand.
I run a retail store in southern California, our next 40K tourney is coming up in November and we have to weigh in on allowing FW or not. My stance on this will most likely not be becuase FW is OP or unbalanced but simply because it is a product that GW will not allow me to sell. I don't see a reason for me to support something that I cannot sell and support the store with.
Now may player base may change my mind if they come back (and some may post here or PM me) that they prefer to play in tournaments with FW.
I know some may come back and argue that I sell GW and that is enough, and I shouldn't not allow FW just because I can't sell that particular product line. And running tournamnets allowing FW will still get me a lot of additional regular GW sales. But it does get a little stickier than that.
Believe it or not, a big chunk of GW players are not familiar with Forgeworld. And we will have to keep explaining to them what those models are. The players will have to explain what they do. And on top of that, there is an even larger GW player base that is familiar with FW that doesn't realize that we cannot sell it. (Trust me I get asked all the time about ordering FW product) So I have to keep explaining that over and over again, and when asked why we can't sell it, I have no real answer for that.
But like I said my player base will determine our stance. If they enjoy FW and like tourneys using them, we will support the players and allow it.
Jon
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Anyone who says 6th edition is balanced is intellectually dishonest and just trying to win an argument, It is incapable of being balanced simply because of the design of the allies matrix. If the codexes were balanced on their own in 6th, then the addition of allies imbalances them as it gives some too much and others not enough. If the codexes are imbalanced and the allies balances them, then we wouldn't have whole codexes without battle brothers or the worst codex ever with no allies.
All this talk of preserving the 6th edition balance is a lie... it is about preserving relational meta which benefits specific people and playstyles. Not wanting to play something which is confusing or new is one thing but claming imbalance is sheneanigans.
|
|